04-29-2003, 10:48 PM
Does it ever occur to you that the Cold War had its own logic, and that politics made strange bedfellows? Your perspective is skewed by being about 25 years 'time late.'
Saddam was as in bed with the USSR long before the US found him to be a convenient foil to the Ayatollah and Mullah led Islamic Rebublic in Iran. Soviets considered Mid East very much in their sphere of influence, and the French were the folks who build the Iraqi nuke plant. Russian and French arms are all over Iraq. The USS Stark was hit by Exocet Missiles fired from French Built Super Entendard jets. The admiration for Stalin is not coincidental, nor is his aping of the methods.
What made Saddam an 'ally of convenience' for the US in part of the 1980's? In Kissinger's era, the Major Player in the Mid East and Persian Gulf was
The Bloody Shah of Iran.
Not Saddam Hussein.
Don't forget, the Shah sold us Iranian oil when the Saudi's led the 1973 boycott. The OPEC embargo. Iraq was involved in that. Kissinger did what to solve that problem? Hmmmmm, shuttle diplomacy . . . yeah.
Once Iran threw out the Shah and declared the US The Great Satan, you have a reshuffling in Washington to figure out who to work with to deal with That strategic issue. The global situation changes with each sunrise, and folks adapt.
The enemy of my enemy can be a useful ally. See also USSR/US alliance 1941-1945.
The US has stayed heavily engaged in the Mid East for, as I see it, two, maybe three, primary reasons.
1. Oil and its impact on the Global economy. In cold war, conrol of that would give USSR a stranglehold on Western economies.
2. Israel. We decreed that it shall exist, back 948ish, through various UN and international actions, and that piece of policy has not changed in some 55 years.
3. The Suez Canal (See international trade again)
A variety of other reasons that I see as being of considerably lesser impact.
Your belief that Iraq was a good and loyal ally of the US is purest poppycock.
Saddam was as in bed with the USSR long before the US found him to be a convenient foil to the Ayatollah and Mullah led Islamic Rebublic in Iran. Soviets considered Mid East very much in their sphere of influence, and the French were the folks who build the Iraqi nuke plant. Russian and French arms are all over Iraq. The USS Stark was hit by Exocet Missiles fired from French Built Super Entendard jets. The admiration for Stalin is not coincidental, nor is his aping of the methods.
What made Saddam an 'ally of convenience' for the US in part of the 1980's? In Kissinger's era, the Major Player in the Mid East and Persian Gulf was
The Bloody Shah of Iran.
Not Saddam Hussein.
Don't forget, the Shah sold us Iranian oil when the Saudi's led the 1973 boycott. The OPEC embargo. Iraq was involved in that. Kissinger did what to solve that problem? Hmmmmm, shuttle diplomacy . . . yeah.
Once Iran threw out the Shah and declared the US The Great Satan, you have a reshuffling in Washington to figure out who to work with to deal with That strategic issue. The global situation changes with each sunrise, and folks adapt.
The enemy of my enemy can be a useful ally. See also USSR/US alliance 1941-1945.
The US has stayed heavily engaged in the Mid East for, as I see it, two, maybe three, primary reasons.
1. Oil and its impact on the Global economy. In cold war, conrol of that would give USSR a stranglehold on Western economies.
2. Israel. We decreed that it shall exist, back 948ish, through various UN and international actions, and that piece of policy has not changed in some 55 years.
3. The Suez Canal (See international trade again)
A variety of other reasons that I see as being of considerably lesser impact.
Your belief that Iraq was a good and loyal ally of the US is purest poppycock.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete