The Castle Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (2834)	2/26/2004 1:45:35 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) of 7936

Saddam's invasion of Iran wasn't as much a front many for the other Sunni states as he was a front man for his own ambitions. It had little to do with being a religious war. When his plans didn't work out so well, their failure threatened to allow Iran to dominate the area, so then all of the Sunni Arabs went together supported Iraq (which was Arab and dominated by Sunnis) against Iran (which was neither Arab nor Sunni). Yes, and you don't think that it was a religious war? Saddam was secular but you don't think he favored the Sunnis over the Shia? The Sunni Arabs supported Saddam because they wanted him to do their dirty work and put down the Iranian Shia. I think that's called a religious war. But all of that is moving away from the original point that most of the neighboring countries did support aid to Iraq and many of them aided Iraq directly at the time. Which answers your question ("Who supported sending him more aid later?"), while leaving mine, ("What damage was done by our minimal support of Saddam in 1980 rather then waiting until Iraq was under more threat from Iran?") unanswered. Yes, so you were all for sending aid to Saddam......is that right? ted

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next