A simple way to understand who is the good guy in the Palestine conflict

ridiculous. reagan armed the baathist hussien to fight against the iranians (who he was also arming thanks to the hostage deal and his pet contrarevolutionaries.)

both the palastinians and israelis fight for their own interests, not ours.
Reagan was playing two enemies of the US against each other. Keeping the Iran/Iraq war going to weaken both countries.
 
Reagan is the greatest, he made America Great.
Reagan financed Iran against the Baathists. Iran supported Palestine. Hamas fought against the Baathists.

Therefore, the Palestinians are friends of America.
Haven’t you ever wondered why no one ever agreed with a single thing you’ve ever said?
 
  • Funny
Reactions: xyz
Reagan is the greatest, he made America Great.
Reagan financed Iran against the Baathists. Iran supported Palestine. Hamas fought against the Baathists.

Therefore, the Palestinians are friends of America.
Reagan simply helped Iran because they helped him win the election with the hostages.

All Palestinians are not Hamas. Baath has nothing to do with the topic. Maybe the PLO was kind of Baathist, but that would be dragging the discussion too far.

Disjointed topic, although not surprising from you.
 
Reagan simply helped Iran because they helped him win the election with the hostages.

All Palestinians are not Hamas. Baath has nothing to do with the topic. Maybe the PLO was kind of Baathist, but that would be dragging the discussion too far.

Disjointed topic, although not surprising from you.

Reagan helped Iraq fight against Iran.
 
Why not?
He helped Iraq, because Iran really, really sucks.
He helped Iran to get hostages released.
This is something vague. There the reasons are obvious: Reagan fought against the criminal pan-Arabist Baath regime, but could not directly help Iran due to the embargo, so he did it in a roundabout way
 
After Khomeini came to power and hostages were taken by the radical students of course there was a furious (but impotent) hostility in the U.S. to the then very popular Iranian Islamic regime. Uncle Sam encouraged Saddam to attack Iran, and even ignored Iraqi use of poison gas — component chemicals for the gas and equipment were sold to Iraq by Britain and valuable intelligence was provided to Saddam.

But the real aim was to have both sides exhaust themselves over this tremendous eight-year war.

Somewhat later domestic politics in the U.S. led to the Reagan Administration’s farcical attempts using Oliver North (iirc) to sell guns to Iran to raise money for the “secret” & illegal Contra War against Nicaragua. But the original sale of weapons to Iran apparently grew out of early negotiations / contacts to have the U.S. hostages released only after Reagan was elected, which also suited Iranian interests at the time. Reagan’s success in getting hostages released right after he was elected gave his administration popular leeway to manage international politics as it saw fit. It gave Republicans a strong reputation with their base (lasting as late as the Bush / Cheney regime) for adopting “winning” international policy moves they did not — imo — really deserve.
 
Last edited:
P.S.

Does there always have to be only “good guys” and “bad guys” in every international conflict?
 
1000044247.1697622833.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top