Still paying for October Surprise 1980? - Tinfoil Hat time.

[Virginian]

Is there a link between the October Surprise and Iran/Contra and Iraq wars?:tinfoilhat: ?

Is there a possibility that the payment for the October surprise which helped Reagan/Bush defeat Jimmy Carter in 1980 included future promises of the weapons which were delivered in the Iran/Contra scandal?:tinfoilhat: ?

Is there any further possibility that the payment for the October surprise also included rendering Iran's arch enemy, Iraq, defenseless against Iran?:tinfoilhat: ?

Could the 9/11 attacks have been because Bush II was dragging his feet about finishing off Saddam.

Could this war in Iraq be about paying back a personal debt for dirty tricks to manipulate the 1980 election?:tinfoilhat:

[Wonk]

1. Um, Reagan/Bush(Rumsfeld,Cheney,etc) helped arm Iraq vs Iran in the 80s...

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/alliance.html

[Virginian]

4. Yes, overt help to Iraq, covert help to Iran.

Basically, the last part of my question regards a possible Iranian connection to al Qaeda.

Are the Iranian leaders on good terms with Osama? Could they have gotten him to send a "message" to the US that they still expected the US to remove Saddam as a threat to them?

They may not have expected his "message" to be quite as drastic.

[punpirate]

2. Sequentially, I would guess...

... a) yes. Both Oct. Surprise and Iran/Contra involved illegal arms sales to the Iranians by the same bunch of people. b) yes. See item a. c) yes and no. Bush I determined to play one off the other, helping both sides, in the attempt to let the two destroy each other. d) no. Since Bush's election was in doubt, and he didn't actually win, it was a pretty short time between inauguration and 9/11 to assume that pressure from the Saudis would result in Bush starting a war with Iraq. e) No. Because Bush did this all on his own, and the only party left outside the conflict with a concern would be Iran, who had gotten theirs from Bush I in the Iran-Iraq war. Besides, who's the holder of the personal debt? Saddam? He got lots of help. The Iranian ayatollahs? They got lots of help. The Saudis? Not on your life. They mostly want money, and Bush has worked hard to give it to them through increased oil prices.

Nope, if you want to find a reason for this war, you have to look first for the progenitors in America--the neo-cons, Bush I, Bush II and what he intended to prove to Bush I and an opportunity which Saudi Arabia provided Bush II. There's no implicit personal debts here--just the raw, naked ambition of the Bushies.

[Virginian]

5. who's the holder of the personal debt?

You said, "who's the holder of the personal debt? Saddam? He got lots of help. The Iranian ayatollahs? They got lots of help. The Saudis? Not on your life. They mostly want money, and Bush has worked hard to give it to them through increased oil prices. "

Going back to the October Surprise. What did Bush offer Iran in return for holding on to the hostages for a few more months? The debt would be what the BFEE owes the Persians.

[punpirate]

7. As far as the Bushies are concerned...

... that's old news--they escaped, and the people who helped them either escaped or were pardoned (that's why they're in the Bush II administration).

As far as the Iranians and the Bushies are concerned, that deal was just a quid pro quo arrangement--we get you TOW missiles, ammunition and spare parts for the F-14s (all of which was illegal to provide Iran because of the sanctions imposed when the hostages were taken and which Israel helped provide and ship--some accounts say those shipments may have started as early as the summer of 1980, but the verifiable ones started in spring of 1981), and you'll hold the hostages until we tell you to release them.

Afterwards, during Iran/Contra, the same bunch sold weapons to the Iranians and used that money to finance the contras, and occasionally had to make additional sales to get a hostage out of the Middle East. Another quid pro quo deal. Strictly business-like, no debts left to owe. Even if the Iranians were to spill the beans on the whole deal (which they wouldn't because they might have to do it again), the Bushies would just deny it, and that would be the end of it.

There's no personal debt involved that I can see. Strictly business.

There's a very good series of articles on the details of the October Surprise here:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

Recommended reading.

Cheers.

[coloradodem2005]

3. There seems to be a connection.

Maybe not as strong as you would suggest.

[yardwork]

6. I think we are still paying for not following through on Watergate.

A lot of these vampires crawled out of the Nixon and Ford administrations. In retrospect, America should have spent more time figuring out what really happened then. I think that a lot of people would have ended up in jail instead of running the Shrub administration.

[tom_paine]

8. Yes. Yes. Probably not. Doubtful. Maybe Gulf I, but not this one.

Just my opinions...