Stephen Harding wrote:
George Z. Bush wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

I'm not aware that the US has *really tried* to break the Islamic
Republic of Iran.

You should be, unless you have some other reason for us to cozy up to that
Iraqi thug, Sadaam Hussein, in his 8 year long war with Iran. You do
realize that we furnished Sadaam with technical military support (on the
most efficacious methods of using chemical weapons in tactical situations,
for instance) as well as military intelligence of value to him that we had
picked up in the course of our normal intelligence work.

I'd like a cite for your "US helped Saddam in the 'most efficacious' use
of his chem weapons claim.

Just go to Google and punch in what you're looking for and you'll find it, just
as I did.

US certainly helped the guy because we didn't like Iran. Part of an
"engagement" policy that failed, although I'd have thought liberal
minded folks would favor such an attempt to "get along". Of course
it failed.

We didn't do those things with the expectation that they would have no
effect on the Ayatollah's hold on the Iranian government and people. We
were trying to help Sadaam win his war and bring down the Ayatollah and his
government.

Having "an effect" on the Ayatollah isn't quite the same as breaking
his government.

Apparently you are having a problem with understanding what I said. I'll put it
another way.....we didn't help Sadaam because we loved him or his government, we
helped him because he was fighting people we despised and we hoped he would
grind them into the dust. No altruism...merely self-interest.

.....We've had "effects" on about every government of the
world. Sometimes positive and sometimes negative.

Talk about belaboring the obvious.

Did Saddam even expect to break the Iranian government? Think he was
primarily after control of the Shat al-Arab waterway and got more than
he bargained for.

How the hell am I supposed to know what Sadaam expected or wanted? And what
does it matter anyway? He became "the enemy of my enemy" and, in that way,
earned our support.

US efforts were primarily to preserve Saddam as a counterbalance to
the Iranians; not a back door method of destroying the Islamic Republic.

That was the Middle Eastern version of the Texas Two Step, and nowhere near the
truth of the matter.

I said that I believed that we supported SH because we wanted to see the
Ayatollah brought down. Let's not play word games with what I said.....we
wanted the Ayatollah's government replaced by a secular one with whom we could
do business. Why? Because we owed the old goat for what they did to our
Embassy and its people, and we didn't mind who dished out the pay back.

George Z.