Soldiers horrifically abuse Iraqis

[Ruinel]

Thanks, BoP, for posting that bit from Jarhead. Kinda creepy.

[Glorfindel_of_Gondolin]

Yeah, I heard the brit photos were fake too. As RtB's post says, the trucks in the backround haven't even been deployed to the region, and a quote from msn news said that the hats the soldiers are wearing are not issued to the soldiers in the Gulf.

Sounds like the usual british tabliods feeding for a story.

[Hemel]

Interesting, BoP, from Jarhead. I'm afraid the piece about the 'American soldier' left me with more questions than it answered. Doubtless there's truth in it, but in my opinion it's a rhetorical piece designed to get us thinking in one particular direction only. But resisting that, what comes out of it for me is 'poor sap'. Yes, I'm sure the 'American soldier' is proud, does a wonderful job, and so on. But doesn't this piece also suggest use and abuse? If so .... shouldn't we instead be asking ... how is it that this lad ends up in the army barely able to write a letter? Is it because the education system or his own society let him down so badly there was nowhere else to go? And just how is it he ended up creating a pile of dead bodies? Who ordered him to do it? Who are the people who are willing to take these half-men half-children and subject them to this? And to train them into such responses (Pavlovian?) to the national anthem? And now women joining in too? Oh, I'm sure I'll call the wrath of some patriarchal feminists down on my head now ... but why? To have the same opportunities as the men? Something in that doesn't quite make sense to me. Don't get me wrong. I have the greatest of admiration for the soldier in the field and the very greatest of respect for what happens to them (even if there are some stupid idiots who abuse their power with PoWs). But can we, in all honesty, have the same respect and admiration for those who put them there?

But anyway - with regard to the Brits ... yes, there's debate going on about whether the photos are real or faked. It seems also that two of the people involved are swearing that they are real and that there are hundreds more. And while I was trawling around on the internet I found a story from over a year ago which stated that a British soldier had been arrested because he, while on leave, had taken photos to the local processing place and they had alerted the police, because the images there depicted some unpleasant scenes. Over a YEAR ago?


Oh, and a note to JD ... yes, you over there suffered a huge terrorist attack. Please don't forget that the rest of us here also have undergone them, just not quite as big, and that a number of us today are still suffering from those attacks. Just because maybe there are fewer of us (*wonders what the proportion is, in terms of overall population, compared with the 9/11 in the US*) doesn't mean it hurts those affected any the less.

[Ruinel]

I listened to a story on NPR (National Public Radio), yesterday, about contractors in Iraq (All Things Considered , 5/3/2004).

The US and the new Iraqi government (I'm not sure about other countries) pay contractors to take over certain jobs: protecting construction workers and buildings (such as the power plant being built), as well as some of the Iraqi security. The US, because of the downsize of the US military in the 90's, hires contractors to do military jobs that the US no longer has the "manpower" for.

Since the demand is so high for contractors (aproximately 15,000 people in all), these companies are popping up all over. Some of them hire unqualified people without military training and foreigners with questionable military backgrounds.

Critics say that these contractors are pretty much unaccountable for their actions. This includes mistreatment of prisoners. There was one report of a young Iraqi prisoner being raped by a contractor while in custody. The military requested that the man be fired from his job with the contractor. These people can not be tried by a military court, nor are they under military laws.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Wow there is no problem with discussing some other subject and dragging out the "evils of America" in it. But god forbid there is a thread about America and someone (namely me) does the samething to some other group. I guess it's only the US which can get freely bashed in all threads - whether it deals with America or not.

well if your intention is to bash other countries so much then go ahead and make more threads so you can bash away to your hearts content. or you can bash in here and put up with people like me pointing out the pathetic disingenuity of your point of view when you bash other countries in a thread that is pointing out the atrocious behavior of some americans.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
well if your intention is to bash other countries so much then go ahead and make more threads so you can bash away to your hearts content. or you can bash in here and put up with people like me pointing out the pathetic disingenuity of your point of view when you bash other countries in a thread that is pointing out the atrocious behavior of some americans.

Nope! There will be no bashing of any country, in this thread, or any other.

EVERYONE, be aware of the new rules stuck to the top of this forum.

[Janny]

I haven't read all of this thread either *glances at Rian for moral support in non-effort mooting *
I agree totally with the view that these pictures should be treated with caution. I have read nothing about the photographs from the US, but of what I've seen of the UK photos, the validity is certainly in question. I think it was characteristically reckless of Piers Morgan to disregard the consequences of the Mirror's publication of the allegations. Regardless of the truth, if the photos are found to be fraudulent there will still be a significantly voiced group who will continue to say that it was a cover up and the actions happened.

Lief, your sentiments are, as IR said, correct and extremely welcome at this point. However, one should not pass judgement on these photographs yet.

I've lost who said it, but I agree that while these crimes, if true, are entirely despicable, they should be taken in perspective with what was committed at the same prison.

Ruinel, how long d'you think it is since there's been a head of an enemy on a pole? (and give up on Nadar!

[Spock]

Rules, more rules, gadz zooks I barely can keep up with all the rules being broken much less the new ones being made

Oh and the over use of words such as; horrifically and abuse, should be curtailed in light of what these words really mean and have meant in other conflicts.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Rules, more rules, gadz zooks I barely can keep up with all the rules being broken much less the new ones being made

Come now, Mr. pointy ears, there really aren't that many, but at least you read them. I saw you in "who's on line" having a look.

[Janny]

Excuse me, miss, I believe you're off topic!
Spock's right about the over-use of terms like that; in context with the Holocaust, for example, such terms become distasteful. However it would be worse if the actions were proved untrue.
Or indeed overtly untrue, such as the words 'George Bush' and 'murderer', made in the context of actions post 9/11... damn you 'Socialist Worker' magazine!

[Insidious Rex]

So you wouldnt consider what you saw abuse then?

[Nerdanel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm sure with the way the middle east behaves - they would do it if they could. Al Qaeda wanted to crashing one of the plane into the White House - the one that crashed into the Pentagon. The one that crashed in Pennsylvania was felt to be headed for the Capitol Building.

I'm sorry if my comment regarding bin Ladin offends you - I persionally don't care. None of you had to live through it and a year of funerals. It was just on the news today that there is an average of 5% who have respriatory problems in New York - the people exposed to the Twin Tower disaster (survivors and rescuers) there is a 50% - 60% respriatory problem in a sample of 10,000 people. Also - they have no idea what the situation will be in 20 years from the exposure of other chemicals and asbestos. I live with it EVERYDAY.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Especially not since you would accept it done to bin Laden; I just thought you were the ones to bring democracy and human rights to Iraq. But it seems like I'm wrong.

I am truly sorry that you've had to live through that, and I'm sure you still do. I'm just surprised that you don't care, 'cause it always seems like you've put a lot of thought into your posts.
No, I haven't had to live thrught that. But I'm sure a lot of people in Middle East have had to.

[BeardofPants]

Violation of basic human rights is abuse, through and through. There's no arguments on this one. Even the Good Doctor backs me on this (doctor who for you ignorant heathens.) You never saw any episodes where he thought it was okay to have prisoners forced to dance around naked and simulate sex acts did you?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

I'm sorry if my comment regarding bin Ladin offends you - I persionally don't care. None of you had to live through it and a year of funerals. It was just on the news today that there is an average of 5% who have respriatory problems in New York - the people exposed to the Twin Tower disaster (survivors and rescuers) there is a 50% - 60% respriatory problem in a sample of 10,000 people. Also - they have no idea what the situation will be in 20 years from the exposure of other chemicals and asbestos. I live with it EVERYDAY.

Yes, that is terrible.

It's also terrible that the Bush Administration lied to you about it, too- maybe some of those lives could have been saved.

For nearly two years, officials at the federal Environmental Protection Agency have denied that they failed to properly inform New Yorkers of the dangers of toxic releases from the collapse of the World Trade Center.
But last week, an investigation released by the EPA's own inspector general made a stunning revelation: The trail of public health misinformation began inside the White House.

The news that White House staff ordered the EPA to minimize potential health dangers near Ground Zero was bad enough. But the details in the 165-page report about how the EPA lied to the public - and even subverted its own safety standards in the process - are chilling.

The original draft of a Sept. 13, 2001, EPA press release, for example, stated, "Even at low levels, EPA considers asbestos hazardous in this situation ..."

Staff members at the White House Council on Environmental Quality turned those words upside down.

"Short-term, low-level exposure [to asbestos] of the type that might have been produced by the collapse of theWorld Trade Center buildings is unlikely to cause significant health effects," the revised report stated.

EPA officials took the position early on that people living in the World Trade Center area should have large amounts of dust removed from their apartments by professional asbestos cleaners.

But White House staff removed any references to professional cleaning from the EPA's releases.

The White House changes were the work of James Connaughton, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Connaughton, who had been on the job for three months, was an industry lawyer who represented major asbestos and toxic polluters before his appointment by President Bush.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-101268c.html

EPA told to lie about WTC air

The Environmental Protection Agency's internal watchdog says White House officials pressured the agency to prematurely assure the public that the air was safe to breathe a week after the World Trade Center collapse.
The agency's initial statements in the days following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were not supported by proper air quality monitoring data and analysis, EPA's inspector general, Nikki L. Tinsley, says in a 155-page report released late Thursday.
An e-mail sent just one day after the attacks, from then-EPA Deputy Administrator Linda Fisher's chief of staff to senior EPA officials, said "all statements to the media should be cleared" first by the National Security Council, the report says.
Approval from the NSC, which is chaired by President Bush and serves as his main forum for discussing national security and foreign policy matters with his senior aides and Cabinet, was arranged through an official with the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the report said.
That council, which coordinates federal environmental efforts, in turn "convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones," the inspector general found.

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/.../23/epawtc.htm

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Does it? In these cases it's condoning this action? I love you say it's systematic process and so forth.

We don't hand over our captives to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - we let them capture them - and then thye can deal with them as they see fit. We are't handing over people to other countries to be tortured.


We just sent him back. We did not accompany him and place him under arrest.

Sent him back to where? He was not coming from Syria, he was coming back from a holiday in Tunisia

Two days layer, October 8, 2002 Arar is woken at 3:00 a.m. and is told he is leaving. The Americans claim he is a member of an organization that has been designated by the Secretary of State as a Foreign Terrorist organization, to wit Al Qaeda aka Al Qa'ida. At 3 o'clock in the morning, Arar is deported on a private jet on which he is the sole passenger, to Syria via Jordan, in flagrant violation of international and American law:

American law requires he be deported to the country of his choosing, or to the country of last transit (Switzerland).

International law requires that he not be deported to a country where he is at risk of being tortured.1
American law strictly prohibits sending people -- even on national security grounds -- to a country where it is likely they will be tortured, and Syria is on the State Department's list of countries known to use torture.2

Not handing people over to other countries to be tortured? That is simply false.

So it's okay if you simply arrange for somebody else to do it for you? - if I hire a contract killer, I guess that means the jury should set me free- hey, I didn't pull the trigger.

And as far as the abuses of prisoners, it should be obvious by now that these were not isolated practises by a few soldiers- anybody maintaining that should immediately get in touch with JCS Chairman General Myers and give him your inside information showing why Major General Taguba is so wrong.

[Janny]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
So you wouldnt consider what you saw abuse then?

I didn't say it wasn't abuse. It was indeed terrible. What I did say is that, compared to the Second World War it was small scale, not that that in any way diminishes the actions of one human to another.

Still, if they are proved false then it's not abuse in any case.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

Well.....I have no idea how good this essay I wrote for another website is....I expect it is over-fastidious, erroneous and crap....and very long....but I thought I'd post it here anyway.

p.s

One must take a look at the 'bigger picture rather then jumping on a pro/anti-Bush bandwagon and spewing forth media rhetoric. (Note the American media with is unique style of pro-American, patriotic self-censorship is a questionable source to trust.)

America pre-1945 played little part in the affairs of the Middle-East. Up until then the Middle-East was dominated by a pseudo Franco-British alliance. This alliance came to be as a result of the Sykes-Picot agreement with France in 1916 in which they agreed to divided the Ottoman territory in the Middle-East between themselves in the case of a allied victory.

When the victory came the aforementioned agreement came into place. (Interestingly, the ‘Balfour Declaration’ which was signed between the British and Zionist Jews came about at this time, in which it was promised to the Jewish people that they would have a national home in Palestine. This sowed the seeds for the emergency of Israel.)

The French were given Syria and Lebanon and the British were given the mandate over Iraq, Trans-Jordan and Palestine. The British sphere of influence was dived in two. One was headed by Faisal Hussein as a succour for his ousting from Syria by the French.

In the run up to his ascension to the throne of Iraq, Britain intimidated and quelled any opposition to Hussein by force, and rival’s campaigns were undermined and ruined by this pseudo-totalitarian British run regime. Thus as, Elie Kedourie in his book ‘England and the Middle-East’ the British actions in Iraq had two main, detrimental effects on Iraqi politics it introduced a intrinsic anti-British attitude amongst the Iraqi’s and

Quote:
“ it justified and sanctioned violent and arbitrary proceedings and built them into the infra-structure of Iraqi politics”


Iraq’s border changes were made to suit British mercantile and economic interests. They failed to recognise the aspiration for national self-determination of the Kurds. National self-determination was a big thing in the political climate at the time because of Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points. They also created a non-secular Arab state and undermined and thereby ignored the conflicts of ideologies between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims who resided in Iraq.

To Iraq, in the ’Treaty of Sévres ’ (1920) was added the Northern province of Mosul, thus dashing the Kurds hopes for a national Kurdish sovereign state. This creation of Iraq was a result of the British desire for oil and other goods as well as for the establishment of political hegemony in the Middle-East.

As Avi Shlaim comments in his book ‘War and Peace in the Middle-East’

Quote:
‘Britain introduced European-type notions of territorial sovereignty to an area where individual tribes were more important then states, where tribal borders were better understood then international ones, and where the law of the desert prevailed’.


This British enforcement of rules, regulations and national borders would have a detrimental effect upon Arab-Western relations in the future.

America only began to take a interest in the Middle-East after WW2. Many people thought that giving Arab’s ‘independence’ could lead to them turning to Communism or sheltering under the protective wing of the Soviet Union. Such fears were, due to the mass anti-Communist paranoia, by and large unfounded. The Arab states rejected notions of ‘West’ (Capitalism) and ‘East’ (Communism) and wished to remain independent.

The infamous ‘Eisenhower Doctrine’, which promised military and economic aid to any country that felt threatened by Communism, perpetuated this problem. It labelled the Middle-Eastern countries as ‘pro-Western’ (read “good)) or anti-West (read “evil communist”) and it readily applied the ‘us and them’ ideology that seems to be so prevalent in American foreign policy. It seemed to a lot of Arab states that the doctrine and the American attitude, was too assuming in it’s presumptions of the Arabian alliance. The Middle-East countries were too pre-occupied with the Israel problem and internal affairs to be bothered about the quasi-communist-capitalist battle that was beginning to spark in their region.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

A turbulent period in the Middle-East followed, in which Lebanon and more importantly Iraq fell under the control of Arab nationalists. The Americans, naturally, viewed the Iraqi coup d’état with a renewed anti-Soviet fervour, believing the Iraqi revolution to be somehow linked with the Soviet Union. No such link existed; or in the very least it did not exist to the extent that America believe it did. The Iraqi revolution took place because of Iraqi anger at Britain’s support for the vilified Zionist Israel and for other internal reasons, such as the rise of Arab nationalism which became intrinsic in the attitude of Arab's across the region for decades after.

The new-found nationalist regimes in Syria, Iraq launched quasi-socialist and nationalist experiments. They began to rely on modernization as a the or a 'way forward' and a counter to the cultural and social challenges that the Arab states faced. The root-cause and invariably the catalyst of this? Israel. America suffered from the political paradox of having to maintain it’s amiable relationship with Israel yet keep up friendly relations with the Arab nations and try to stop the rise of the neo-Arab nationalism, when the Western interference in the Middle-East and America’s support of the ‘great evil’ Israel simply perpetuated these problems. America unfortunately could not look beyond their money-tinted and anti-Communist lens.

In 1961, Britain granted Kuwait independence. This lead to a re-assertion of the Iraqi claim to Kuwait. The British and Americans in a joint coalition decided to intervene on the behalf of the oil-rich Kuwait and sent 6,000 troops to discourage a Iraqi attack. After no attack came they left Kuwait in the hands of the ‘Arab League’ a quasi-peace keeping group in the Middle-East. The British, as a result of internal dissonances with regards to their polices and involvement in the Middle-East withdrew and America took up the control in the Middle-East.

Avi Shlaim, on the reasons for the American failure in the Middle-East comments:

Quote:
The secret of Britain’s success lay in keeping a low profile and small military presence, and above all, in limiting the supply of arms. The secret was forgotten in the post-empiral era when Uncle Sam succeeded John Bull as the area's pre-eminent power and the manager of the gulf's security


American's can be divided into two distinct schools of thought in regards to the American foreign policy in Israel. The 'globalists' tended to be pro-Israel and regarded the Middle-East as a strategic battleground in the cold war and a way in which to further America’s economic and tactical interests. Their main aim was to pre-empt the Soviet and Communist threat. The regionalists saw it in a more condensed way, and they looked at the Middle-East in the local picture looking at internal conflicts and dissonances etc. and how to solve these enmities. The regionalists view of Israel was far from chivalrous and they viewed it as a series liability in keeping Arab-American relationships amiable. Unfortunately, most regimes and presidents followed the globalist school of thought.

1. To block any Soviet expansion in the Middle-East.

2. To maintain and protect the supply of oil to the Western nations.

3. Curb interest in Arab nationalism and protect the pro-Western governments of the Middle-East.

4. To maintain the status quo and keep Israel well protected.

Cordiality with the Arabs was not a major concern for the globalists as they thought the Arab's needed the West more then the West needed the Arab's. This gave them licence to act as they wished too, without thought of the long-term or even short-term dissonances of their actions. They viewed the Arab world with such aloof contempt that they thought 'peace' would never exist in this ever-warring, overly violent and backwards and intrinsically aggressive sub-group of peoples and so felt their 'Israel' first policy which caused no end of aggression and hatred against the West on the part of the Arab's was thus perfectly feasible and right and that it wasn't stopping peace since the people who they were trying to establish peace with were inherently disposed to war. Such a moral paradox, born out of American ignorance and arrogance was one of the main reasons as to the strained relationship between America and the Arab states.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

The Arab states could not cope with the presence of the Zionist, pro-American Israel in their midst. Israel was regarded by a lot of Arabian nationalists as the "garrison" state of Western imperialism. Of course, one could put this down to a falsity or half-truth on the part of the ever voracious Arabs, but is a statement with a grain (or a few grains, rather) of truth. Israel did act as a pseudo-'51st state' in the midst of the Arab world and the fact that the 'unruly' or 'undemocratic' Arabs may have exaggerated or distorted this threat matters little. America’s pro-Israel approach acted as a cause of the antagonistic anti-American aggressions of the Arabs and whether the U.S had meant for their support for Israel to be so extreme and one sided is questionable but whether the effect of this support had far-reaching consequence is not.

The emergence of a despotic, Islamic caliphate and the international 'jihad' movement (though the jihad movement only really took off after the Al-Qaeda American assisted victory of Russia in Afghanistan, it was a continuation of a archaic Ottoman Islamic movement) can all be seen as originating (if not wholly) from American and British actions in the Middle-East and the creation of Israel.

Nonetheless America was able to stabilise it's precarious position within Iraq by adopting two subservient pro-Western states within the Middle-East; Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both had abundant oil resources (always a good thing) and had held 'pro-Western governments' for some time. Both became encompassed in what was known as the “two pillar strategy”.

But there were internal problems within this two pillar allegiance under American dominance. The Iranian and Saudi’s did not get along well, and Saudi Arabia was a enemy of America’s important ally of America’s main collaborator in the Middle-East, Israel.

Though the Saudi's had the weaker military (which meant she had to ally herself more closely to Iran) they were to more moderate then Israel and asked for lower prices for exported oil.

America also supplied both states with arms. The shah of Iran was a particularly voracious purchaser of arms brought arms at a staggering rate. America was happy to supply the shah with weapons, despite knowing that he had a poor human rights record (to say the least) both for financial gains and to further their own hegemonic influences in the region and to safeguard against a possible Russian attack. In a visit the shah in 1972 Nixon and Kissinger promised to supply the shah with any arms he wanted and by the mid 1970’s close to half of their arms exports went to Iran. America in short started to heavily militarise the Middle-East without thought of the future effects of supplying certain countries with weapons and the upsurge in Arab nationalism and fundamentalism and the possibility of a fundamentalist takeover in one of these nations and thus the very probable possibility of the weapons eventually winding up in the wrong hand. Given the recent emergence of such fundamentalist despots in Israel and Syria America should have taken note of the dangers of supplying gulf states with arms .

The over-spending on arms naturally led to inflation and corruption as well as perpetuating the shah's catalogue of human rights violations. The Iranian people began to rebel against the shah, for his despotic rule, poor human rights record and his illicit dealings with America. The Islamic fundamentalists jumped on the bandwagon and used the Shah’s relationship with America to promote their twisted, extremist views to the ignorant majority who brought their inflamed rhetoric. America in acting as the primary supplier of arms and collaborator of the Shah and doing little about his poor human rights record, thus inflating his ego and power perpetuated the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and Arab nationalism-they very threat that they were trying to contain. Such Faustian errors and self-contradictions were part and parcel of American’s policy in the Middle-East.

In the mean-time America was getting suspicious and unfriendly (or unfriendly) with the Baathist regime over in Iraq. Not only were the Baathist's Iraqi fundamentalists, despots (though that seem to bother the Americans much ) but the Iraqi's had the nerve to set up quasi-diplomatic relations with the U.S.S.R and though nowhere near under the yoke of Communism as the every jingoistic and paranoid Americans made out, they were still labelled a threat because of their semi-amiable relationship with the Soviets.

The shah hoped to destabilise the Baathist regime in Iraq. Israel, Iran and America decided to support a Kurdish uprising in Iraq. But the reasons for backing the Kurdish rebel forces were far from good-natured. A report some years after the American-backed Kurdish uprising claims that:

Quote:
“Documents in the committee’s possessions clearly show that the president, Kissinger and the foreign head of state (the shah) hoped that out clients (the Kurds) would not prevail. They preferred instead that insurgents simply continue a level of hostilities sufficient to sap the resources of our ally’s neighbouring country (Iraq.) This policy was not imparted to our clients, who were encouraged to continue fighting

[Inderjit Sanghera]

As Avi Shlaim comments “The White House treated the Kurds as pawns in their geo-political game, supporting them only as long as they were useful.” Some years later, Sadaam Hussein concluded a deal with the Iranian shah in which a dispute over the Shatt Al-Arab waterway was concluded. Part of the deal was that Iran, Israel and America would halt their aid to the Kurds. Thus the Kurds were exposed to the wrath of the Baathist regime.

The perceived cordiality in the Middle-East was predictably upset by Israel and her war with Egypt and Syria in 1973. The ’Yom Kippur War’ acted as a protagonist in the future of America’s relations with the Middle-East and served as a catalyst in the rise of fundamentalist movements. Predictably, the Arabian paranoia and hatred of Israel and it’s presence in their midst was the cause of the now unstable socio-economic climate in the Middle-East.

The Arab states decided to restrict their production of oil to the West and the OPEC (supported by those amiable pillars of American hegemony, Iran and Saudi Arabia) raised the price of oil four fold. The Arab nations decided to invest their new found financial assets not in education, healthcare or business but in arms. The principal supplier of these arms? America, of course. Between 1973 and 80 $30b of arms were supplied to Iran and Saudi Arabia alone. Again, America gave no thought to the destructive consequences over heavily militarising the gulf.

America’s position in the gulf became further precarious with the over-throw of the Israel and America friendly shah of Iran and the setting up of a fundamentalist, militant caliphate headed by the notoriously anti-American Ayatollah Khomeini. This proved disastrous for America who lost one of their major allies in the Middle-East. Why was the shah over-thrown? For several reasons, some wholly or partly linked with America.

Iran’s benevolent relationship with Israel, which was seen as going against Islamic principles, their cosy relationship with America and their importing of arms from America, and the vast amounts of governments revenue being spent on weapons brought in from America, and the shah’s record of poor human rights as well as various internal problems meant the shah was over-thrown. Some critics observe that of Carter had pushed his orders to the shah that he needed to stop his poor record of human rights and liberalize his nation then the shah may never have been over-thrown but these critics fail to take into account the influence of outside forces such as Israel and America and how their interference merely perpetuated the rise of Arab nationalism. America’s selfish interests acted as a death knoll in the shah’s regime and it is this ironic that America partly put into place the very regime that they were trying to destabilize.

The Iranian regime believed that could be the driving force in getting rid of the Americans and the America friendly regimes in the Middle-East. Such ideological views would serve to perpetuate the new-fangled idea of Islamic ‘jihad’ which took shape in Afghanistan not long after. They felt they needed to spread the word on Arab nationalism to other moderate or pro-western Arab states. Iran also rejected Communism and juxtaposed both “great evils” as being equally bad and did not wish to be ruled over by either. They wished to create a Islamic bloc capable of competing with both America and Communism and this brand of pseudo-jihadism was fast spreading across the gulf.

In 1980, Iraq launched a war on Iran. They launched this war in order to counter the rise of the Shiite Islamic militarism, establish hegemony over the gulf and to settle various border disputes. (These border disputes were a result of the British creation of borders some half a century or so earlier)

The American position on the war was that they wanted both sides to lose. (Kissinger) and in the wars early days they adopted a position of benevolent neutrality. Eventually, the Americans began to supply both nations with arms, either through an agent (Israel) or directly, despite the trade and arms embargo imposed in both nations. The American view was that embargos created by America could be misused by America.

The Iraqi ties with the Soviet Union (who supplied them with arms etc.) and the natural distortion of exaggeration of their relationship and the Arab fundamentalism of the Iranians meant they had to choose from the lesser of two evils. The Soviets initially condemned the Iraqi’s actions in invading Iran, and stopped supplying them with arms but reinstated their arms deal with renewed zeal when Iran invaded Iraq, though they did urge Iraq to sue for peace. But clemency was not one of Hussein’s strong points.

The Iranians were eventually gaining the upper hand in the war and it seemed that they would over-run Iraq and bring their version of Arabic fundamentalisms into the more moderate Iraq. America thus shifted from it’s neutral position to supply Iraq (the defender of the status quo and block against the spread of Islamic fundamentalism) with political support. Later on it allowed Iraq to make arms purchases on credit and this new-found alliance became stronger after 1986 when diplomatic relations between the two were fully after a length hiatus.