Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

Does anyone think anything of the Iran rationale? That is to say, before the war we supported - even propped up Saddam as a bulwark against the spread of the Iranian Revolution throughout the Middle East. Then Saddam proved to be a problem when a) Iraq failed to win the Iran-Iraq war, b) Iran failed to implode following the death of Kohmeini and c) Saddam tried to invade an ally of the U.S. In my opinion the U.S. simply got cocky. We knocked out Afganistan on Iran's Eastern border so we thought we could do the same in Iraq on it's Western and thereby box it in. The oil rationale can only go so far in explaining the conflict. After all, if we were so into the oil, why didn't George H.W. press his advantage when he had the chance. Obviously the old CIA man felt Saddam's value as a buffer against Iran outweighed the value of his oil. Any thoughts?

[QUOTE="rmbarron, post: 15983, member: 397"] Does anyone think anything of the Iran rationale? That is to say, before the war we supported - even propped up Saddam as a bulwark against the spread of the Iranian Revolution throughout the Middle East. Then Saddam proved to be a problem when a) Iraq failed to win the Iran-Iraq war, b) Iran failed to implode following the death of Kohmeini and c) Saddam tried to invade an ally of the U.S. In my opinion the U.S. simply got cocky. We knocked out Afganistan on Iran's Eastern border so we thought we could do the same in Iraq on it's Western and thereby box it in. The oil rationale can only go so far in explaining the conflict. After all, if we were so into the oil, why didn't George H.W. press his advantage when he had the chance. Obviously the old CIA man felt Saddam's value as a buffer against Iran outweighed the value of his oil. Any thoughts? [/QUOTE]

Verification