02 Nov 06
Originally posted by chancremechanicThey can't both be more culpable than the other chancre, that's nonsense.
Both...because they were fighting for no friggin' reason, except that Saddam hated the Ayatollah, and vice versa....
And your understanding of the Middle East climate at the time is naive at best.
02 Nov 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZGood for you!
I wasn't even born when the war started and I knew who invaded whom.
But you asked which was more culpable. Let's see...
Iran threw out the Shah and took Americans hostage. Bad Iran!
Iraqi jet blows up the USS Stark. Bad Iraq!
Iran flies jetliner in the way of US missile. Bad Iran!
Iran needs spare parts and funnels money from Israel to Contras. Good Iran! No wait, that was wrong! Bad Iran!
Iraq invades Kuwait. Bad Iraq!
[time passes]
Bad Iraq! Invade Iraq!
Iran says Israel has no right to exist. Bad Iran!
So what is the answer? Well since neither nation is Israel, the question makes no sense and cannot be answered.
02 Nov 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZNeither. The Iran-Iraq War was in fact a war by proxy between the USA and Iran for control of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, vital to oil exports from the region.
Who was more culpable during this conflict? Iran or Iraq?
The whole war was a huge failure for the USA, as when it finally ended in a bloody stalemate after 18 years, Iraq had failed to achieve the goal of seizing complete control of the Shatt al-Arab waterway. The massive scale arming of Iraq by the USA and its allies also left Sadam Hussein with the capability to now start wars of his own volition. The crippling debts Iraq had been saddled with by loans received during the war inspired him to do exactly that just two years later. Kuwait, whose independence had always been disputed by Iraq, was owed $16 billion. Sadam invaded Kuwait hoping to revoke its independence and thus wipe out the debt, as well as securing extra oil income to repay his other debts.
03 Nov 06
Originally posted by spruce112358No mention of gas attacks? Or the American intelligence that enabled them to be carried out?
Good for you!
But you asked which was more culpable. Let's see...
Iran threw out the Shah and took Americans hostage. Bad Iran!
Iraqi jet blows up the USS Stark. Bad Iraq!
Iran flies jetliner in the way of US missile. Bad Iran!
Iran needs spare parts and funnels money from Israel to Contras. Good Iran! No wait, that was wrong! Bad Iran!
Iraq i ...[text shortened]... nswer? Well since neither nation is Israel, the question makes no sense and cannot be answered.
03 Nov 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZI challenge anyone to find a coherent theme in US foreign policy in the Middle East over the last 50 years.
No mention of gas attacks? Or the American intelligence that enabled them to be carried out?
Is it about oil? No. We support Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. None of these countries has oil.
Is it about opposing radical Islam? No. We are very friendly with Saudi Arabia which has about as radical a view of Islam as one can find.
Is it about democracy? No. Israel is democractic, but our friends the Saudis are not. Our friend Turkey is, but our friend Jordan is not. Saddam never was -- either when he was our friend or our enemy. Neither was our friend the Shah of Iran.
Regarding the gas attacks, I think the US position on gas warfare is pretty clear. Saddam was one to take liberties.
03 Nov 06
Originally posted by spruce112358On 21 March 1986, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that "members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons." The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement.
Regarding the gas attacks, I think the US position on gas warfare is pretty clear. Saddam was one to take liberties.