Originally Posted by ganeil
We must simply have a different definition of what constitutes, "being in bed with" because even if I were to accept as true (which I don't) what you have said, it still would not indicate the type of close, operational alliance that I would associate with "being in bed." At most it shows that we shared some dual use technology and took steps to see that Iraq did not lose (not win their war, we wanted a stalemate) its war with Iran. It would be plausible to argue that we were "in bed" with the Shah, or with the UK, or Australia but by no means with Ba'athist Iraq. To maintain the analogy, we were not in bed but at most met for a drink once.
WHy would you continue this discussion at this point?
It is obvious that the truth for him is only from the Gov't controlled sources -- he's been programmed 20 years ago, brainwashed and thaught things completely opposite from reality. No way to change that. Plus, working as the war profitter adds to it all...