America: are we too arrogant?

[Pistachio]

I deliberately got info up until 1980's. This was about the Iran Iraq war right ? It started in 1980, so its relevant what arms where available up to and through the war period . The reason it seems that US military aid is not mentioned is because NO US MILITARY AID WAS GIVEN. Iraq did not use US arms to fight a war. Even your links do not say the US sent arms. They say they sent TRUCKS that the US claims they didn't know would be used in war, but the trucks were sent by a US company because Regan removed the enemy status from Iraq . That enabled US COMPANYS to deal with Iraq. The US GOVERNMENT never sent any aid other than intelligence . Iraq was free to TRADE with the US thanks to the government removing barriers put in place when that country went into the Soviet sphere of influence..the removal of trade barriers is the AID that your radical friends pin thier case on. Just like the link to Anthrax and Chemical weapon supplies it holds no water when subject to scrutiny. I read your links every one of them. Again nothing new , all the same claims that the radicals and anti war protesters use along with some crap that the Hisbolla and Iranian government put out as propaganda. And as far as your thinking that material in the library of congress is somehow bogus or tainted, that only shows even more your lack of impartiality and credibility. Before making that remark you would have been wise to at least look up some info on it .
Silvia drifter... You should have read the links instead of the posts, maybe then you would have discovered the mistakes that pistachio made instead of becoming a parrot.
You guys can jump in the hole now.
How can anyone argue that the Iraqi aqrmy used US military equipment insead of Soviet block and French have any credibility what so ever. Thats one fact that cant be twisted. The fact that you misinterpret what you read in your own links is also troubling.

"Summary:
The U.S. provided financial aid, military intelligence, and actual military planning to Iraq at a time when the Reagan administration was well aware that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran. One anonymous inside source told the New York Times that the Pentagon “wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas. It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference.”

The facts surrounding U.S. covert support for Iraq and its awareness that Iraq had been using chemical warfare against the Iranians, and perhaps the Kurds, offers serious implications to the current Bush administration's argument for 'regime change' in Iraq. One of the main premises of the administration's argument is that Saddam Hussein must be removed from power because he is 'evil' - referring of course to the allegation that Saddam Hussein 'gassed his own people.' "

Yeah sounds like the only thing they gave were trucks.
And somehow its ok for a country to allow sale of weaponry to a ruthless dictator. And because the war started in 1980 and went until 1988 that means that if the US supported Saddam inbetween 1980 and 1990 is irrelevant?

I never said the Soviets or French didn't supply Saddam with arms, the French in fact had a large part to do with their nuclear program. What i am saying is that the US supported Saddam, something not long ago you completely denied, now you are saying that they merely "didn't give aid" (which they did, but we already knew that).

"1982. President Reagan ordered the Defense Department and the CIA to supply Iraq's military with intelligence information, advice, and hardware for battle after being advised to do so by CIA Director William Casey. Former Reagan National Security official Howard Teicher said that Casey "personally spearheaded the effort to insure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war." The U.S. continued to provide thi type of intelligence to Iraq until 1988."

Not just aid, they went out of their way to help the agressor Iraq attack its neighbout Iran. Sale of weapons to Saddam, at the same time selling weapons to Iran through Israel, the US made a decent profit from the 1million or so casualties.

 

[Pistachio]

Just to damn your case a bit more.

"1984. The CIA secretly provided Iraqi intelligence with instructions on how to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [Washington Post 12/15/1986]"

"1983. The Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 civilian Hughes helicopters to Iraq, in spite of the fact it was widely understood that the helicopters could be weaponized with little effort. Critics regarded the sale as military aid cloaked as civilian assistance. [Phythian 1997, pgs. 37-38] "

"1983. Secretary of Commerce George Baldridge and Secretary of State George Shultz successfully lobbied the National Security Council (NSC) advisor to approve the sale of 10 Bell helicopters to Iraq in spite of objections from the rest of the NSC. It was officially stated that the helicopters would be used for crop spraying. These same helicopters were later used in 1988 to deploy poison gas against Iranians and possibly the Kurds. [Washington Post 3/11/1991; Phythian 1997, pgs. 37-38] "

"1983. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt supplied Iraq with U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons with the secret approval of the Reagan administration. [Phythian 1997, pg. 35] President Reagan personally requested Italian Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to funnel arms to Iraq. [Friedman 1983, 51-54 cited in Phythian 1997, pg. 36]" - This deserves a note, funneling of US arms through countries that aren't the US, basicaly a way of selling weaponry indirectly, very sly.

"August 1983. Iraq was using mustard gas. It is not clear if the use of this weapon was known by the U.S. State Department and National Security Agency [Profile] at that time. [CIA Declassified Report ca. 1997]"

"November 1, 1983. U.S. State Department official Jonathan T. Howe told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports indicated that Saddam Hussein's troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW [Chemical Weapons]" against their Iranian adversaries. [Washington Post 12/30/02; The Times 12/31/02]"

"December 19, 1983. President Reagan dispatched U.S. envoy to the Middle East Donald Rumsfeld, to express the administration's intention to “resume [U.S.] diplomatic relations with Iraq.” [American Gulf War Veterans Association 9/10/2001] "


I will stop right now thanks, i was only 1/20th of the way through the article and was selectively choosing quotes, i don't want to flood the whole screen now. Which makes me wonder, did you realy read the links i gave? Or did you just skim, because i personaly DID read the links you gave me, thats why i picked up the fact that you gave no evidence at all saying the US didn't provide weapons/aid to Saddam, in fact it had nothing to do with Saddam at all.

 

[Pistachio]

Just to damn your case a bit more.

"1984. The CIA secretly provided Iraqi intelligence with instructions on how to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [Washington Post 12/15/1986]"

"1983. The Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 civilian Hughes helicopters to Iraq, in spite of the fact it was widely understood that the helicopters could be weaponized with little effort. Critics regarded the sale as military aid cloaked as civilian assistance. [Phythian 1997, pgs. 37-38] "

"1983. Secretary of Commerce George Baldridge and Secretary of State George Shultz successfully lobbied the National Security Council (NSC) advisor to approve the sale of 10 Bell helicopters to Iraq in spite of objections from the rest of the NSC. It was officially stated that the helicopters would be used for crop spraying. These same helicopters were later used in 1988 to deploy poison gas against Iranians and possibly the Kurds. [Washington Post 3/11/1991; Phythian 1997, pgs. 37-38] "

"1983. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt supplied Iraq with U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons with the secret approval of the Reagan administration. [Phythian 1997, pg. 35] President Reagan personally requested Italian Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to funnel arms to Iraq. [Friedman 1983, 51-54 cited in Phythian 1997, pg. 36]" - This deserves a note, funneling of US arms through countries that aren't the US, basicaly a way of selling weaponry indirectly, very sly.

"August 1983. Iraq was using mustard gas. It is not clear if the use of this weapon was known by the U.S. State Department and National Security Agency [Profile] at that time. [CIA Declassified Report ca. 1997]"

"November 1, 1983. U.S. State Department official Jonathan T. Howe told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports indicated that Saddam Hussein's troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW [Chemical Weapons]" against their Iranian adversaries. [Washington Post 12/30/02; The Times 12/31/02]"

"December 19, 1983. President Reagan dispatched U.S. envoy to the Middle East Donald Rumsfeld, to express the administration's intention to “resume [U.S.] diplomatic relations with Iraq.” [American Gulf War Veterans Association 9/10/2001] "


I will stop right now thanks, i was only 1/20th of the way through the article and was selectively choosing quotes, i don't want to flood the whole screen now. Which makes me wonder, did you realy read the links i gave? Or did you just skim, because i personaly DID read the links you gave me, thats why i picked up the fact that you gave no evidence at all saying the US didn't provide weapons/aid to Saddam, in fact it had nothing to do with Saddam at all.

Here is a funny one (actualy kind of sad realy)

"April 6, 1984. During a meeting in Jordan with Iraqi diplomat Kizam Hamdoon, U.S. diplomat James Pecke in Jordan asked that Iraq halt its purchasing of chemical weapons from U.S. suppliers so as not to "embarrass" the U.S. [Institute for Policy Studies, 3/24/03]"

But despite the above-
"Between 1985 and 1989 almost $5 billion made its way to Iraq from the U.S.. Memos obtained by reporters revealed that both the Federal Reserve and Department of Agriculture had suspected that Iraq was using these funds inappropriately. "

 

[ledhed]

do you realise what SUPPORTED SADDAM means ? Is it like we Support Britain or like we Support China ? Improving relations do not mean support. The US played Saddam against the Iranians trying to ensure that NIETHER SIDE WON because we found both sides repugnant . We helped Saddam when he was on the ropes and Iraq when they where in danger of defete. We supplied Iran with arms and Iraq with info. All this is common knowlage here. At the time of the Iran Iraq war cold war concerns also came into play , the US although afraid of the war spilling over into the gulf states could not send forces into the area to do anything against Iran or Iraq without getting the Soviets involved . Hence the use of proxys , like in most of the cold war. By both sides . At the time the best thing for the US and the region in the eyes of the US and its allies was that the war ended and that when it ended it ended as close to a stalemate as possible. The world new Iraq used Chemical weapons, any support the US could give after the nitwit Saddam did that, was hard to justify and even greedy US companys had to stop doing business with Iraq due to internal pressure and public opinion. It was heavily reported here and public boycotts of companys doing business with Iraq where planed and even carried out in some instances. This is reality. And it gives you another reason to remove the Saddam regime . his use of chemical weapons in the war against Iran proved his determination and willingness to use them in a war against whatever nation he considered his enemy.
This is the best and most impartial link I have found on the subject.
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

 

[ledhed]

Ummm I posted links and an article showing the period from 1958 through the 1980's showing the composition of Iraqs army.

"1979.07.16 Vice-president Saddam Hussein succeeded al-Bakr as president, and began consolidating power through purges and terror."

Funny enough all your info on Soviet aid and such to Iraq and lack of US aid to Iraq seems to stop just as Saddam Takes power. In fact your source has absolutely no info on Saddams rule at all. What relevance is your info if it doesn't relate to Saddam?"

So how can his ties to the soviets not relate to Saddam ?
Again you show me quotes from "the propaganda ministers of the worlds guide to anti Americanism" ( my quotes) and call the info from the library of congress suspect.
Bob as pistachio ? or pistachio as Bob ?
three pages of agruments and guess what SADDAMS still gone. I still have not found any readons in all of your arguments why it would have been better for the world to leave SADDAM in power. Funny when you get right down to it.
Isn't that what this is all about ?

 

[Pistachio]

do you realise what SUPPORTED SADDAM means ? Is it like we Support Britain or like we Support China ? Improving relations do not mean support. The US played Saddam against the Iranians trying to ensure that NIETHER SIDE WON because we found both sides repugnant .

So you are saying, the United States, pitted them against eachother, allowed them to kill eachother, for there own political (and economic) benefit?
Wow, that is the most disgusting thing i have ever heard in my life. This changes everything, the US government is indeed the last bastion of decency on earth!
Go look up terrorism and find out what it means, because i think you may find this case relevant.

Enough jokes, your argument is rediculous. "Improving relations"? $5 billion dollars i suppose is improving relations? What about playing a key intelligence role in the war against Iran? And i suppose you know that they were trying to "ensure that NIETHER SIDE WON because we found both sides repugnant" because you have evidence of this and you not just saying things im sure.

We helped Saddam when he was on the ropes and Iraq when they where in danger of defete.

And this is good? You guys helped Saddam for the majority of the war, i dont know what "on the ropes" has to do with it. Saddam was an agressor, and technicaly speaking Iran won the war anyway.

We supplied Iran with arms and Iraq with info.

Go to the links already, fess up, the US supplied aid, arms, intelligence and "trucks" lol

All this is common knowlage here.

Yes it is, though i will remind you that not long ago you denied ANY support for Saddam. I'm glad that the links have been established as common knowledge now.

At the time of the Iran Iraq war cold war concerns also came into play , the US although afraid of the war spilling over into the gulf states could not send forces into the area to do anything against Iran or Iraq without getting the Soviets involved . Hence the use of proxys , like in most of the cold war. By both sides.

This isn't about Soviets vs the US, quite frankly im unimpressed by both of them.

At the time the best thing for the US and the region in the eyes of the US and its allies was that the war ended and that when it ended it ended as close to a stalemate as possible.

For the reason you stated above? Because the goal was maximum deaths on both sides? For the US's buisness and political interests? Because the US has some sort of right to dictate what happens around the world, especial in affairs that have little to nothing to do with it.

The world new Iraq used Chemical weapons, any sup[port the US could give after the nitwit Saddam did that was hard to justify and even greedy US companys had to stop doing business with Iraq due to internal pressure and public opinion. It was heavily reported here and public boycotts of companys doing business with Iraq where planed and even carried out in some instances.

Except at the time Saddam wasn't a nitwit, he was "our kind of guy". The fact of the matter is the US gave aid and opened up the path for the US to do buisness with Iraq even though they were well aware of the crimes Saddam had an was commiting.

This is reality. And it gives you another reason to remove the Saddam regime . his use of chemical weapons in the war against Iran proved his determination and willingness to use them in a war against whatever nation he considered his enemy.

Saddam is a ruthless dictator no doubt, that isn't the issue. The fact is if Saddam should face the death penalty so should the western government officials that were so important in the murder of soo many. Especialy the US which according to you created and kept the Iran Iraq war alive so as to damage the two countries as much as possible.

 

[Pistachio]

Ummm I posted links and an article showing the period from 1958 through the 1980's showing the composition of Iraqs army.


So how can his ties to the soviets not relate to Saddam ?

Because Saddam took power in '79. Weapons sold to Iraq prior to his rule can't exactly show how people sold weapons to him (since he wasn't in power to sell weapons to LOL). Besides, i never contested that Iraq didn't have Soviet weapons, i was already aware of this. But you claimed Saddam had significant relations with the Soviets, and this was simply not the case, since your links only tell me what was already there when Saddam took power, not which countries supported him.

 

[ledhed]

Your view of support and mine differ greatly. I do not consider playing off two enemy's against each other as "support"
Again the bottom line is this . I still see no reason why leaving Saddam in power would have been better for the world or the region.
In three pages of arguments . You still cant prove or claim credibily that leaving Saddam in power would have been a good thing.
I guess you never read the links about his relations with the Soviets, Although it is common knowlage. Its like giving you links to prove the world has blue skys.
And your the one claiming that the US played off the two countrys for profit not me .
The US "allowed them" to kill each other ? Aside from military intervention , how do you stop them ? They killed each other.
when you become king of the world maybe you can change the way nations interact.
For all of your railing and posturing and propaganda will not change the fact that the Iraqi's and the world are much better off because of the US.

 

[Pistachio]

Your view of support and mine differ greatly. I do not consider playing off two enemy's against each other as "support"
Again the bottom line is this . I still see no reason why leaving Saddam in power would have been better for the world or the region.
In three pages of arguments . You still cant prove or claim credibily that leaving Saddam in power would have been a good thing.
I guess you never read the links about his relations with the Soviets, Although it is common knowlage. Its like giving you links to prove the world has blue skys.
And your the one claiming that the US played off the two countrys for profit not me .

Never said that, im saying bring Saddam to justice by all means! Let a UN led force restore order, let the Iraqi people decide on what to do (don't privatize all the oil and sell it to US companies on a no bid basis), install a proper interim government that has popular support, and engage in dialogue with al Sistani (someone who you hear little about) who is in fact the most powerful man in Iraq (barring the US), and other important figures. But if you bring Saddam to justice bring all the other criminals too.

Not to say i supported this war ever happening, but it has now, not much can be done about that besides bringing the people who started this criminal war to justice aswell.



Something bothers me though,

Your view of support and mine differ greatly. I do not consider playing off two enemy's against each other as "support"

I can't pretend to know if the US was in fact doing this (if so, it would rank as one of the worst crimes of the last century indeed). But the fact of the matter is Saddam was aided (in a general, not technical term) in killing, commiting crimes, commiting genocide and opressing his people by the US. To kill as many Iraqis and Iranians or not the US carries alot of blame over Saddams crimes.
In Australian domestic legal technical terms the US would be classed as "an accessory before the fact" and would be "liable to the same punishment as a principal offender depending on the role they play in the comission of the offence.

 

[ledhed]

Its a fact the US supported both sides to some extent . its also a fact that it was not considered in the best interest of the US and others for either side to win that war. So draw your own conclusions. Everyone else has. Where you been ? Wars are not pleasant and niether is politics. The Iran Iraq war was the fault of Saddam The Iranians could have ended it when the UN got involved but the Ayatolla was so pissed at Saddam he wanted him gone....so the war went on. That other nations would use the war to benifit in anyway somehow suprises you ? If you cant stop it you have to try to make the outcome affect the rest of the world in the least harmfull way. In the case of the US and the rest of the Western world and at the time Japan , its all about oil. OIL is the blood that drives economys, without it nations shrivel and die. You cant let a madman controll access to it . So you at best just try to keep things status quo.

 

[Pistachio]

I guess you never read the links about his relations with the Soviets, Although it is common knowlage. Its like giving you links to prove the world has blue skys.

For the tenth time i did, and i was already aware that Iraq had purchased Soviet arms BEFORE Saddam came to power, but as i said, you haven't shown any indication of Soviet purchases after Saddam came to power. Not that this is even the issue, the argument you raised was Saddam would purchase soviet arms and not US arms, and as we have seen that is incorrect.

And your the one claiming that the US played off the two countrys for profit not me .
.

Profit or not, YOU said the US did it for political reasons which i won't confirm or deny, since you are admitting the US was commiting grevious crimes.
And here is the funny part, killin someone for money will not make you a terrorist, but killing someone for political reasons does, neither is excusable, weather done for one or the other is irrelevant, but what is known is the US made a very handsome profit out of the 1million deaths.

The US "allowed them" to kill each other ? Aside from military intervention , how do you stop them ? They killed each other.
when you become king of the world maybe you can change the way nations interact

They killed eachother indeed, and not providing Saddam with soo many loans and the oportunities to buy weaponry, and of course intelligence, would have in any sane persons opinion shortened the war, leading to a swift victory by the Iranians.

 

[ledhed]

The countrys at war commited the crimes Iraq for attacking Iran and Iran for not ending the war when the UN offered to because they wanted Saddam gone. Its your opinion that giving aid or selling arms is a crime then the whole world is guilty of it at one time or another. If you take the time to look at the links I gave you you will see the equipment that Saddams regime had from the period after the Iran Iraq war untill he was removed WAS SOVIET. Unless he got it from the tooth fairy it proves his relations with them continued throughout his regime.

 

[Pistachio]

Its a fact the US supported both sides to some extent .

They supported Iraq, they also sold weapons to Iran through Israel. There is no problem with Iran purchasing arms as it is entitled to self defence of course. Selling to Iran was a crime in the eyes of the US though as it was in violation of there domestic laws (hence why sold through Israel). Funny that you imply that profiteering (economic or political) off and extending the duration of a war that killed 1 million was somehow a good thing. I won't try to change your values, if you think it is ok to do it then that is fine, values can't be changed. But as i said, it is quite illegal to do so.

its also a fact that it was not considered in the best interest of the US and others for either side to win that war.

The best interest of the US is of no value in this argument. Would it be ok for lets say Armenia to support and extend a war between lets say the US and Canada for its own "national interest"? Yeah, nice justfication, i hope the "best interests" of the US are satisfied by the blood of the 1 million who died.

So draw your own conclusions. Everyone else has. Where you been ? Wars are not pleasant and niether is politics.

Thanks for the wake up call man, i thought they were walks in the park.

The Iran Iraq war was the fault of Saddam The Iranians could have ended it when the UN got involved but the Ayatolla was so pissed at Saddam he wanted him gone....so the war went on. That other nations would use the war to benifit in anyway somehow suprises you ?

No it doesn't (especialy from the US), and that is an unfortunate thing in my opinion.

If you cant stop it you have to try to make the outcome affect the rest of the world in the least harmfull way.

Stop it, arguable. Lets assume the US indeed couldn't. What it could have done was not supply arms, aid and logistics to Iraq, leading to an easy win for Iran. But no, it is far better to maximise casualties for personal gain.

In the case of the US and the rest of the Western world and at the time Japan , its all about oil. OIL is the blood that drives economys, without it nations shrivel and die. You cant let a madman controll access to it . So you at best just try to keep things status quo.

So it is the oil? We already knew this, why else would the US ever give a damn about the middle-east. Don't forget that the madman was supported by the US.

 

[ledhed]

Ummm why indeed would anyone care about anyplace ? damm right its the OIL . The world wants it . They have it. We send them stuff , they send us oil. Trade makes the world go around and defines the relationships between country's. Is this a new concept to you ?

 

[Pistachio]

The countrys at war commited the crimes Iraq for attacking Iran and Iran for not ending the war when the UN offered to because they wanted Saddam gone. Its your opinion that giving aid or selling arms is a crime then the whole world is guilty of it at one time or another. If you take the time to look at the links I gave you you will see the equipment that Saddams regime had from the period after the Iran Iraq war untill he was removed WAS SOVIET. Unless he got it from the tooth fairy it proves his relations with them continued throughout his regime.

Actualy supplying arms, aid and logistics to Saddam IS a crime, as i said, the US is a party to the crime.

Also about Iran not stopping the war after searching around the most relevant thing that came up was

"Iraq and Iran accepted a 1984 UN-sponsored moratorium on the shelling of civilian targets, and Tehran later proposed an extension of the moratorium to include Gulf shipping, a proposal the Iraqis rejected unless it were to included their own Gulf ports.

Iraq began ignoring the moratorium soon after it went into effect and stepped up its air raids on tankers serving Iran and Iranian oil-exporting facilities in 1986 and 1987, attacking even vessels that belonged to the conservative Arab states of the Persian Gulf. Iran responded by escalating its attacks on shipping serving Arab ports in the Gulf."

But regardless

Iran for not ending the war when the UN offered to because they wanted Saddam gone.

And this is wrong if Iran does it, but ok if the US does it? I agree that if Iran did indeed seek out to destroy Saddam it was an illegal act, but this would also incriminate the US.

Saddams regime had from the period after the Iran Iraq war untill he was removed WAS SOVIET. Unless he got it from the tooth fairy it proves his relations with them continued throughout his regime.

For the millionth time, the issue is that the US supplied him. You still havent given me evidence of Soviet arms deals with Iraq AFTER Saddam took power only giving me records of deals BEFORE Saddam was President.

 

[Pistachio]

Ummm why indeed would anyone care about anyplace ? damm right its the OIL . The world wants it . They have it. We send them stuff , they send us oil. Trade makes the world go around and defines the relationships between country's. Is this a new concept to you ?

Why am i still arguing with you? Now you are saying it is OK for the US to go to war for the purpose of securing energy reserves?
If you are trying to tell me why the US commits these crimes, then thank you, but i am well aware.
If you think it is a justification, then i think we can just stop arguing now because we have come to the conclusion on what the US is doing and why it s doing it, the only difference being you thinking that they have good reasons and me thinking they have bad reasons, ultimately a question of out values.

Besides, i don't know if i have time for this, i have to finish a legal report in the next day and im way behind schedule.
...and hopefuly... one day, you will leave the Dark Side and join us



EDIT- found the resolution that Khomeini declined, "UN Security Council Resolution 598 on the Gulf war, passed unanimously on July 20" dont worry.

 

[ledhed]

Cripes..here's a quote from thye Moscow news.
"On the other hand, Washington, Moscow, and countries in-between were not averse to courting friendship with Iraq, either, largely thanks to the Iraqi leaderships generosity in paying for arms and dual-purpose contracts. In the early 1970s, Iraq received fissile materials from France. Baghdad obtained what it wanted from Paris after Moscow refused to provide radioactive material without IAEA supervision. However, France seemed so greedy for Iraqi money that it threw all reasonable precautions to the wind. That attempt of Saddams to develop nuclear weapons failed when the facility was destroyed in an Israeli air raid in 1981.

Canadian engineer Gerald Bull was building a supergun in Iraq in the midst of its war with Iran. It would have had a barrel 150 meters long and a meter in diameter. But Project Babylon, as the supergun was codenamed, fell to pieces because of Bulls assassination in 1990.

The Soviet Union lavishly supplied Iraq with conventional weapons, mostly for ideological reasons: Baghdad was pretending to build a Middle Eastern version of socialism. "
here's a link for ya. http://www.folium.ro/world-encyclopedia/iraq/82.htm


In fact while we are on the subject of Iran, Its important to remember why Iran is and was at the time an enemy of the US. the Iranian hostage crisis made most Americans despise Iran , after that the state sponsored terrorist from Iran attacking the Americans in lebenon and taking hostages there intensified our dislike. Iran was before Saddam public enemy no. 1 in most of the US. Its no suprise then that a lot of Americans where willing to let the Regan administration get away with the games they played at the time.
Also on the issue of the regions relevance to the US; Aside from oil , something we all want and need , the region exports one other Item thats not so well recieved, TERRORISM. now combine them both and you have in a nut-shell the strategic interest of the United States. both those issues will determine for the large part our foriegn policy in that region.

 

[Solid Fro]

one day, you will leave the Dark Side and join us

Join the anarchist Anti-Americans who have nothing better to do than critisize America for not being perfect?

No thanks.

 

[Muscles]

Why am i still arguing with you? Now you are saying it is OK for the US to go to war for the purpose of securing energy reserves?
If you are trying to tell me why the US commits these crimes, then thank you, but i am well aware.
If you think it is a justification, then i think we can just stop arguing now because we have come to the conclusion on what the US is doing and why it s doing it, the only difference being you thinking that they have good reasons and me thinking they have bad reasons, ultimately a question of out values.

Let me say this once. This was not a war for oil. First of all, oil prices were much, much cheaper before the war. Anyone thinking that this has made oil more affordable is living in a fantasy world. Additionally, oil was cheaper for US oil companies and the world as a whole under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program. Now that Saddam is gone, this program no longer exists. If this war was about oil, you’d see either an extension of the program, or even sanctions lifted (in return for secret deals to use Iraq’s oil). Yet, neither happened.

Anyone with sources on the ground in Iraq can also tell you that the Iraqis are becoming more and more in control of the oil industry. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t be seeing US companies losing contracts to companies that opposed the war like Germany, France, Russia or even Iran.

Yet it is naïve to say that the war didn’t have a strategic value because of its oil. We had no power over the Saudis. Now finally, with more oil sources being developed, we can bargain. Oil prices, and thus the wealth of the elite in Saudi Arabia, can be dropped (and thus drop terrorist financing). Additionally, this allows us to bargain. As time goes on, and we become less and less dependent on Saudi Arabia, the more and more cooperative they will become.

 

[ledhed]

While googling around to look at stuff for these post I found this site;http://www.allahpundit.com/archives/000505.html
Seems they like to pull the radical liberals cranks a bit
this fella's scary. http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001496.php
a right wing link;
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200404080815.asp

 

[Solid Fro]

Allah in da house!

 

[Arwin]

Join the anarchist Anti-Americans who have nothing better to do than critisize America for not being perfect?

No thanks.

I like the Times-Europe article a lot on this subject, published just before the 2nd Gulf War, on the Europe-V.S. relationship. It said among others that as long as the two continents continue to talk AND listen to each other, we'll most likely keep getting along. In a discussion like this, people perhaps don't always change their mind, or rarely don't even, but at least you get a bigger understanding of the subject and of the reasons why someone else disagrees with you. This alone is helpful, and that is why in many discussions there are only winners.

 

[Travi_D]

As an Australian, the opinion of America we have is influenced a lot by the media, and in recent times, I think that it has had a lot to do with the Iraq war, and peoples negative reactions towards it. Personally, i support the US stance on the issue, but thats not what this thread is about.
We get an image of America as a country that likes to stand tall and stand out in almost everything that it does. Well, in my opinion, thats because it has to. In times of political unrest, without a super power like america, no one would decide anything and we'd have a really big fence with a whole lot of countries sitting on it, Australia being one of those countries.
If being what they are, a country not afraid to stand up for them selves, makes them arrogant, then they are guilty as charged.
So are they arrogant? Probably. Is that a bad thing? No.

The only gripe i have is the fact that they call the NBA champions the world champs. I know that they're the best, but you dont see us in Oz call the AFL(aussie rules) premiers the world champs even though were the best.

 

[87chevy]

^ nice post!

He's right, if it wasn't for superpowers, or countries that just want to stand out, no one would know what side to take. If there is no darkness, there is no light.


It's also bugged me that all our sports champs are called "world champs"....

 

[Duke]

Me too, and welcome to the Opinions Board, Travi_D.

I'll hate it being called the World Series of baseball until I see a Japanese or Central American team show up.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Me too, and welcome to the Opinions Board, Travi_D.

I'll hate it being called the World Series of baseball until I see a Japanese or Central American team show up.

What's the matter, Canada ain't good enough for ya'?

Oh, right...stupid question.