In '82, Reagan felt we "COULD NOT AFFORD to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran," so... the US "went to work" backing Iraq with intelligence, money, and weapons; but then Iran acquired weapons and parts for its Shah-era US weapons systems through secret transactions with officials in the Reagan administration, in exchange for influence regarding the release of Western hostages...

The Iran-Iraq War cost $1.19 TRILLION and resulted in a stalemate.

Iraq's financial support came mainly from Saudi Arabia ($30 BILLION), Kuwait ($8.2 BILLION), and the United Arab Emirates ($8 BILLION).

During the war, IRAN'S ARSENAL, originally almost entirely American, came from Syria and Libya (Scud missiles), N. Korea, and China (Silkworm missiles); Iran operated F-14 Tomcats, F-4 Phantoms, F-5 Freedom Fighters, AH-1 Cobra helicopters, and KC-135 refueling tankers.

Though IRAQ'S ARSENAL came from the Soviet Union, France, China, Egypt, and Germany, as Ted Koppel of ABC reported: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Iraq into an aggressive power. Reagan/Bush administrations permitted--and frequently encouraged--the flow of money, dual-use technology, chemicals and weapons to Iraq." In fact, Reagan personally asked Italy's Prime Minister to chammel arms to Iraq, and his administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer American howitzers, helicopters, bombs and weapons--in clear violation of the our Arms Export Control Act.

My point here is: Can there be much more large-scale fighting between Iran and Iraq WITHOUT LARGE-SCALE ARMS SALES?

All the countries that sold weapons or gave money to Iraq or Iran should be compelled to take part in pacification efforts...

Just in..., according to Yahoo news (as of 8:45 PST): "Some US firms investing in terror nations."

What...? How...? Incredible!!!

Official Source refutes report of Nawaf Obaid in Washington Post

Riyadh, Dec 1, SPA -- An official source, in a statement to Saudi Press Agency, has said a report published in the American newspaper "Washington Post," in its edition of Wednesday, November 29, 2006, attributing to writer Nawaf Obaid, "is absolutely not true."

"This writer does not represent any official Saudi authority. What has been published (in the newspaper) represents only his own view. It also does not represent in any way the Kingdom's policy and stand to support security, unity and stability of Iraq with all its sects and doctrines," the official source said.

--SPA

http://www.spa.gov.sa/English/details.php?id=407659

Iranian-baked? Mmm. Delicious.