Originally Posted by geggy
Oh dear, that canard again. And by "again," I mean, "again in this very thread." Here's something I posted on page 10
, in response to Alek's assertion that Saddam had been "a CIA asset for some 40 years":
In addition, it deserves pointing out that the US cut off diplomatic relations with the Ba'athist regime early on (log before Saddam ousted Abu Bakr and assumed the presidecy himself), and those relations remained severed until 1983. Pointing to that photograph of Rumsfeld meeting Saddam and claiming it shows that the US incited Iraq to go to war against Iran isn't even a post hoc ergo propter hoc
fallacy, it's a praeter hoc ergo propter hoc
("before this, therefore because of this") fallacy. The fact is that the US rekindled relations with Iraq only after Iran had declared that it would not be satisfied with restoration of the status quo ante
, but that it intended to keep on fighting until the Ba'athist regime was deposed and replaced with a new government which was more friendly towards Iran.
It's also a matter of public record, if you can be bothered to look for it, what support the US actually gave Iraq during the war with Iran. The US sold (not, sold
) Iraq military equipment, but none of it was weapons systems; rather, it was stuff like battlefield ambulances, unarmed helicopters and the like. The DIA provided intelligence on Iranian force dispositions, and in later stages even provided battle plans designed to take advantage of that intelligence. But that's about it; American policy was quite clearly intended to provide Iraq with the means to hold off Iran without actually providing it with anything that could be used against any other country in the region.
And note that, even after the 1983 meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam, the Soviets continued to sell military hardware to Iraq, culminating in the sale in 1989-1990 of massive amounts of hardware which had become surplus to Soviet requirements following the withdrawal of Soviet forces from eastern Europe. Evidently, the Sovs found that photograph significantly less compelling evidence than conspiracy theorists do now. I'm constantly amazed by the tendency on the part of many anti-Iraq war/anti-Bush types to seize upon dribs and drabs of material from the 1980s and brandish them as if nobody had been previously aware of these things, and as if there were no other explanation for them but some post-9/11 conspiracy theory. Those of us who actually followed the news back in the 1980s (yes, we had news reporting before the internet!) have a hard time knowing how to respond, simply because the ignorance displayed is so breath-taking.