Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (2833)	2/25/2004 7:28:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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). 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. Tim