5 ms·

What's effaced from history is how closely the US supported Hussein's Iraq throughout the 80's, right up to the invasion in 1991. The US removed Saddam from the

What's effaced from history is how closely the US supported Hussein's Iraq throughout the 80's, right up to the invasion in 1991. The US removed Saddam from the official terrorists lists, sold him advanced weaponry and weapon producing capabilities, including chemical weapons, and nuclear capabilities, at a time when he committed his most egregious crimes, including the gassing of the Kurds. Just before he invaded Kuwait Saddam was even visited by a high level us delegation led by Bob Dole. https://chomsky.info/20020901/ https://chomsky.info/20020901/

toyg 11y ago
It's very ironic that most of these strategies were seen as ways to counter Soviet influence, whereas the opposite happened in practice: Moscow "lost" the Iranian revolution when it turned religious, and Iran went back to Russia only in order to counter US influence.
arethuza 11y ago
I can vividly remember watching reports of the Iran-Iraq war when I was at school in the UK - there was no doubt in my mind that at the time that Iraq was on "our" side. "Who controls the past controls the future...."
- teh_klev 11y ago
  I remember this too when I was at school (I was ~12/13 at the time the war started). The British media and government were firmly onside with Iraq whilst writing up over egged horror stories of torture and depravity being inflicted by Iran on its own citizens, all the time ignoring Hussain's human rights violations (and those of the then exiled Shah of Iran). There was a palpable sense of glee that Iran might get it's comeuppance for having the audacity to overthrow the Shah. I bet the US and UK governments are ruing the day they decided to interfere in Iran's democratic affairs back in 1953. What with Reagan shooting his mouth off about the Russians, a deepening cold war (not helped by the Iran/Iraq war - US and allies backing Iraq, the Soviet Union backing Iran), the Soviets deploying to Afghanistan....all in all, not a great time to be growing up as a teenager aware of world affairs. I really thought the world was about to bite the big green nuclear banana between 1980 and 1985.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    It very nearly did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83
laotzu 11y ago
For more reading, here is a Congressional report on the sale of those weapons and the resulting blowback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle_Report
berntb 11y ago
"An enemy's enemy is my friend." Foreigners don't have a vote at home, so democracies often have as cynical foreign policy as any dictator. And lie as much about it. (At least during the cold war, today human rights considerations seems to carry a much larger weight.)
TheGirondin 11y ago
What's even more unbelive is that the US is allies with Germany and Japan after WWII, and relations with Cuba reversed after they allied themselves with the USSR. It's almost like nothing in international affairs is static, things change, and things being one way in one decade and another in a different decade doesn't mean anything or anyone is "wrong."
- popmystack 11y ago
  None of those are really comparable. Nice try though.
- Dr_tldr 11y ago
  Point ------> You -----> According to my projections, not only did you completely miss the point, it looks like you're on track to never getting it. The concept of "discontinuity versus continuity in governance" is apparently beyond you. Lurk more, post less?
  - dang 11y ago
    Personal attacks are not allowed on HN. We ban accounts that do that, and yours has done it more than once recently, so please stop.
- cableshaft 11y ago
  This was due to the US seeing how the "punish the losers" strategy after WWI led directly to WWII and us trying not to repeat that same mistake after WWII (sorta kinda, there was more at stake, such as the Cold War, which helped shift alliances also). But basically the US decided helping the people who lost the war reconstruct can keep our influence in the area and reduce the desire to rise back up and retaliate against them. The US actually tried exactly this same approach after the Afghanistan and Iraq wars (remember all the money spent on rebuilding afterwards, training police forces, etc?), and it turned out to not work out so well for them this time around.

toyg 11y ago

It's very ironic that most of these strategies were seen as ways to counter Soviet influence, whereas the opposite happened in practice: Moscow "lost" the Iranian revolution when it turned religious, and Iran went back to Russia only in order to counter US influence.

arethuza 11y ago

I can vividly remember watching reports of the Iran-Iraq war when I was at school in the UK - there was no doubt in my mind that at the time that Iraq was on "our" side. "Who controls the past controls the future...."

teh_klev 11y ago
I remember this too when I was at school (I was ~12/13 at the time the war started). The British media and government were firmly onside with Iraq whilst writing up over egged horror stories of torture and depravity being inflicted by Iran on its own citizens, all the time ignoring Hussain's human rights violations (and those of the then exiled Shah of Iran). There was a palpable sense of glee that Iran might get it's comeuppance for having the audacity to overthrow the Shah. I bet the US and UK governments are ruing the day they decided to interfere in Iran's democratic affairs back in 1953. What with Reagan shooting his mouth off about the Russians, a deepening cold war (not helped by the Iran/Iraq war - US and allies backing Iraq, the Soviet Union backing Iran), the Soviets deploying to Afghanistan....all in all, not a great time to be growing up as a teenager aware of world affairs. I really thought the world was about to bite the big green nuclear banana between 1980 and 1985.
- arethuza 11y ago
  It very nearly did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

laotzu 11y ago

For more reading, here is a Congressional report on the sale of those weapons and the resulting blowback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle_Report

berntb 11y ago

"An enemy's enemy is my friend." Foreigners don't have a vote at home, so democracies often have as cynical foreign policy as any dictator. And lie as much about it. (At least during the cold war, today human rights considerations seems to carry a much larger weight.)

TheGirondin 11y ago

What's even more unbelive is that the US is allies with Germany and Japan after WWII, and relations with Cuba reversed after they allied themselves with the USSR. It's almost like nothing in international affairs is static, things change, and things being one way in one decade and another in a different decade doesn't mean anything or anyone is "wrong."

popmystack 11y ago
None of those are really comparable. Nice try though.
Dr_tldr 11y ago
Point ------> You -----> According to my projections, not only did you completely miss the point, it looks like you're on track to never getting it. The concept of "discontinuity versus continuity in governance" is apparently beyond you. Lurk more, post less?
- dang 11y ago
  Personal attacks are not allowed on HN. We ban accounts that do that, and yours has done it more than once recently, so please stop.
cableshaft 11y ago
This was due to the US seeing how the "punish the losers" strategy after WWI led directly to WWII and us trying not to repeat that same mistake after WWII (sorta kinda, there was more at stake, such as the Cold War, which helped shift alliances also). But basically the US decided helping the people who lost the war reconstruct can keep our influence in the area and reduce the desire to rise back up and retaliate against them. The US actually tried exactly this same approach after the Afghanistan and Iraq wars (remember all the money spent on rebuilding afterwards, training police forces, etc?), and it turned out to not work out so well for them this time around.