A different look at Reagan (political cartoon)

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-06-17 12:29pm

And that the risk that Iran wins? I think not. An Iranian victory would almost certainly have meant major trouble for other American allies in the vicinity - namely Saudi Arabia.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-06-17 12:38pm

We realy used option D, which was overtly support Saddam, but covertly support Iran when Saddam was starting to win too much. We would "leak" vital intel to Iran, namely satelite intel about troop positions and strength. Wink and let slide periodic arms shipments to Iran.(oop! got past our inspectors, Darn!) We would give advice to Saddam, and tell the Iranians what he planned afterwards.
We played both sides against the middle.
We didn't want EITHER side to win, but AT THE TIME, Saddam was the lesser of two evils we publicly favoured. This was in the 80's, BEFORE he did most of what we now condemn him for. He was just an other middle east dictator, no better or worse at the time. The gas attacks and Kuwait was later. He was just as bad as, or good as, the Saudis.
The goal of getting both sides to fight to an exhausted draw was successful I might add. And last of all, you are short sighted if you forget the context of the cold war, and that whole USSR thing! Doing NOTHING was NEVER an option in that context. Who we favoured the most, was determined by who was LOSING at the time.
This is just an other case of judging the past by the context of the present. Conditions of the strategic picture, historical actions, and knowledge were all different then. Not having the Russian boogyman around has changed the world so much, many forget how it WAS when there was one.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-17 01:10pm

Axis Kast wrote:And that the risk that Iran wins? I think not. An Iranian victory would almost certainly have meant major trouble for other American allies in the vicinity - namely Saudi Arabia.

Oh yes, because support Saddam didn't lead us to any trouble at all, no sir. You really are an idiot.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-06-17 01:12pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: Oh yes, because support Saddam didn't lead us to any trouble at all, no sir. You really are an idiot.

I have a serious question. Do you want Allau Ackbar Fundies right on the
fucking border to the world's largest proven reserves? In the game of
realpolitiks, sometimes you have to do morally sordid choices because
the alternative is far far worse than what you're doing.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-17 01:20pm

MKSheppard wrote:I have a serious question. Do you want Allau Ackbar Fundies right on the
fucking border to the world's largest proven reserves? In the game of
realpolitiks, sometimes you have to do morally sordid choices because
the alternative is far far worse than what you're doing.

Was having Saddam on the fucking border to the world's largest proven reserves any better? The point is that he was a scumbag dictator that was equally as bad as anyone in the region. Supporting any of them is completely wrong. And look, it turned out that we had to fight two wars with him because of our choice because what obviously was going to happen happened (ie Saddam turning around and biting us in the ass).

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-06-17 01:24pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:The point is that he was a scumbag dictator that was equally as bad as anyone in the region. Supporting any of them is completely wrong.

When the choice is between a scumbag dictator and islamofascists,
I'll take the scumbag every day.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-17 02:51pm

MKSheppard wrote:When the choice is between a scumbag dictator and islamofascists,
I'll take the scumbag every day.

A scumbag dictator who killed millions of people in various horrible ways and that we ended up having to fight not one but two wars to get rid of finally? How about supporting neither.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-06-17 03:37pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:When the choice is between a scumbag dictator and islamofascists,
I'll take the scumbag every day.
A scumbag dictator who killed millions of people in various horrible ways and that we ended up having to fight not one but two wars to get rid of finally? How about supporting neither.

Saddam killed millions of people? Are you sure you're not exaggerating?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-06-17 03:47pm

First of all, Emperor Cruel, I'd like to see evidence regarding your argument that we "leaked" vital information to Iran. Arms for hostages was one thing, but this is entirely another.

Secondly, Hamilton, it's clear that your analysis of events is rooted in 20/20 hindsight. Unfortunately, back then, there were few indicators of Saddam's future treachery - unless you'd like to substantiate why you think he was giving unmistakable signs to countries like Kuwait, who just happened to loan $1 billion and more to the Iraqi cause for fear of an Iranian victory.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-06-18 04:47am

Can anyone show that without US assistence, Iraq would had lost the war?

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-06-18 05:16am

Gil Hamilton wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:When the choice is between a scumbag dictator and islamofascists,
I'll take the scumbag every day.
A scumbag dictator who killed millions of people in various horrible ways and that we ended up having to fight not one but two wars to get rid of finally? How about supporting neither.

He commited those crimes after we were supporting him. Before then he was actually acting less homicidaly crazy than the Iranians.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-06-18 05:15pm

Can anyone show that without US assistence, Iraq would had lost the war?

Does it really matter? Our support for Saddam was insurance, either way.

After the Shah, the Americans were extremely worried about just to what degree the Ayatollah purged his military, and how many replacements they'd be able to scrounge together for what had once been the region's finest fighting force after Israel's. As it was, Iran did manage to find some provisioners of American equipment - namely Israel, the IRAN-CONTRA team, and Vietnam.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-06-18 06:54pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Can anyone show that without US assistence, Iraq would had lost the war?
Does it really matter? Our support for Saddam was insurance, either way.

After the Shah, the Americans were extremely worried about just to what degree the Ayatollah purged his military, and how many replacements they'd be able to scrounge together for what had once been the region's finest fighting force after Israel's. As it was, Iran did manage to find some provisioners of American equipment - namely Israel, the IRAN-CONTRA team, and Vietnam.

Wait a minute, you're saying that the Israeli's sold equipment to Iran? I thought the Israeli's and Iranian's were mortal enemies?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-06-18 09:49pm

During the Iran-Iraq War, the Israelis served as American proxies in engaging Iran in the hostages-for-weapons deals.

They basically decided they liked Iran slightly more than Iraq.