04-29-2003, 09:59 PM
That would just completely invalidate my argument if the US was a mere third, rather than a whopping first. A complete reversal of my point. Or maybe it really wouldn't matter at all, especially if you consider the overall Middle East situation.
The US ran the show in the middle east, insofar as that was possible without outright conquest. Kissinger made sure that everyone not under the control of the US was kept out of the game. Saddam was an agent of that control. France had been kept quite effectively out of the middle east thoughout the cold war except as a willing partner to US control. The Soviets made remarkably few inroads, except Egypt under Nasser, which was ambiguous at best.
My point was that the US was not merely complicit, but crucial in the middle east game at that point, and they chose to play with Saddam as a partner. That Russia or France might have been incidentally closer is not relevant, at least to my argument.
Jester
The US ran the show in the middle east, insofar as that was possible without outright conquest. Kissinger made sure that everyone not under the control of the US was kept out of the game. Saddam was an agent of that control. France had been kept quite effectively out of the middle east thoughout the cold war except as a willing partner to US control. The Soviets made remarkably few inroads, except Egypt under Nasser, which was ambiguous at best.
My point was that the US was not merely complicit, but crucial in the middle east game at that point, and they chose to play with Saddam as a partner. That Russia or France might have been incidentally closer is not relevant, at least to my argument.
Jester