0  0

Is there really any doubt as to whether or not the US would go to war or allow a war to happen to protect her economic interests? How many countries in the world would not if they had the means? The problem for us mere civilians is that we can never have enough real information.

0  0

Steve; The idea that America started, backed, commanded, or otherwise directed the Iran-Iraq war is nonsense.

I really dont know what the level of US involvement in the Iran/Iraq war was and there are likely only a handful of people who do. I think that most of us know that they were involved. They were supporting both sides of a conflict with arms and intel. WTF is that? The best answer I can manage is that that they were mostly good and decent people who, having more information than the rest of us, were making difficult decisions to ensure the best standard of living for the most people with the least suffering. Yes, the US standard of living first. Yes, other people were suffering and dieing. How many people around the world would suffer and starve if the US suddenly lost 15% of its energy supply?

Steve; …but rather sought to profit by it by swapping Hawnk missiles for the US hostages Iran held.

Were the hostages not released on the day of Reagan’s inauguration?

0  0

The Iran-Contra affair did not start the Iran-Iraq war but rather sought to profit by it by swapping Hawnk missiles for the US hostages Iran held. This event had no meaningful effect on the conflict. Your argument appears to spring from the faulty logic that if any American involvement occurs in a foreign war, then it’s all America’s fault. It’s false and it’s premise deserves rejection.

0  0

All the clues anybody needs to understand the conflict is that the Iranians were making trouble in the Shia part of Iraq, as they are prone to do, while their nation was in disarray from their ill-considered revolution. Saddam saw his chance to shave some disputed land off Iran while it was weak an distracted by internal disputes.

Despite the wacky conspiracy theories Saddam started his war all by his selft. The weapons he used to press that war were entirely Soviet and European. America’s role in that conflict was related to trivial opening of trade and the delivery of intelligent products that identified threats and weaknesses for both sides.

Annony: “You are right about Europe’s role. My
outrage is directed at you because you
are the posturing nincompoop typing
tripe that shows up on my screen.”

Do you a Euroweenie key on your keyboard that squirts a jet of ink when you are threatened?

Annony: “Again: what conspiracy theories do I
subscribe to? What is the Euroweenie
conspiracy, Steve? Care to explain
that to those of us who are not intimately
acquainted with your cranial can of worms?”

The conspiracy theory that America backed the Iran-Iraq war, a war started by Saddam and fought with Soviet jets, tanks, artillery, light arms with substantial help from the French and others. Produced by the conspiracy theorists who blame America first for everything everywhere.

0  0

I am not a proponent of this theory, I was merely the messenger bringing the thoughts expressed by a very well respected personality to the fore. Why I did so was two-fold: the first is to demonstrate that this “conspiratorial” theories are not limited to the “man on the Arab street”, the other is to explore the ideas more fully and illicit responses which could enrich the discussion.

I am not of the conspiratorial ilk. Stating rather categorically that we are where we are simply because of American dominance (political, military and cultural) is a rather defeatist attitude and an abrogation of responsibility. In other words, to me, it is a simple cop-out.

I am also relatively sure that you will agree with me that the fluctuation of oil, currencies, commodities or any other trade-able goods are affected by a plethora of factors; ease of access – and the perception thereof – is probably of prime importance.

Therefore, it is quite possible for the price of that commodity to increase or subside due to perceived upcoming instability of its supply, be that due to the weather, calamity, dearth of basic compositional material, or even the threat of conflict.

I do not know the historical significance of events leading up to the increase in oil prices, nor did I follow the conflicts which increased its price in its surrounding envelope. I do know; however, that this is germane to the work of economists whose bread and butter this is.

Hence, when I hear someone like Dr. Khaled stating rather categorically – even if his opinion was spoken as rhetorical question – I listen, and try to analyse to come to my own conclusion.

I am still away from a rather conclusive stance on this issue but I can tell you that I cannot – in view of the this – simply dismiss Dr. Khaled’s opinion as “yet another Arab conspiratorial way of thinking.

0  0

Steve; The idea that America started, backed, commanded, or otherwise directed the Iran-Iraq war is nonsense.

Well, I have to say that I am impressed with your zeal,Steve, but I think that you are employing a little voluntary amnesia? Do you have any recollection of the Iran/Contra affair? Perhaps I am a victim of the liberal media spin machine and that was all about free helpings of democracy for Nicaragua, courtesy of US generosity.

Yes, the US is a shining example of freedom and democracy but she is not without her faults. We use a different yard stick over here. Are you really so proud that President Bush might be better educated or smarter than the king of Saudi Arabia? How does he stack up against Kennedy or Kissinger or McNamara or Mahmood?

“Why is it that in this region of the world we are faced with a major conflict whenever there is an appreciable hike in the price of oil?”

Maybe I am missing the point here but isnt the price of oil driven up by the uncertainty created by the conflict and not visa versa? Furthermore, the US imports about $80 billion/yr from OPEC nations and about $90 billion/yr from Canada. Should I break out the musket and get ready for the swarming hordes of oil hungry Americans?

0  0

Americans are, quite sensibly, not interested in impeaching every other president for his offenses (even if you assume all Americans are equally offended by an administration’s misbehavior.) It’s not a perfect world and most administrations have blemishes on their records. Impeachments are costly, distracting, and divert the rest of the government from its duties. Far easier and more efficient to vote the idiots out of office next time around.

0  0

Please change that from childish Arab conspiracy to childish Euroweenie conspiracy. The idea that America started, backed, commanded, or otherwise directed the Iran-Iraq war is nonsense. The Iraqis under Saddam started it all by themselves with some provocation by the Iranians.

The Iraqis under Saddam. That’s the clue
you need. “Euroweenie,” huh? Get out of
your playground, sparky.

America backed that war. Fact. From 1953
onwards the agenda of UK/USA regarding
Iran has been clear.

You are right about Europe’s role. My
outrage is directed at you because you
are the posturing nincompoop typing
tripe that shows up on my screen.

Again: what conspiracy theories do I
subscribe to? What is the Euroweenie
conspiracy, Steve? Care to explain
that to those of us who are not intimately
acquainted with your cranial can of worms?

0  0

Its not that they have a fixed term and then go willingly…its what they do while they are there…..and we let them. How many presidents, including the current one, should have been impeached for their actions…and yet we let it all slide by…except for Nixon…I bet he wonders why he was singled out compared to what some others have done.

Whats worse….allowing a corrupt leader to rule your country from fear of death if you try to change it….or letting a corrupt leader rule your country…and choosing to ignore you rights to change it and just letting it slide…waiting for his term to finish so the next monkey can take up residence in the big white house on the hill?

0  0