What exactly lies on the Iraq Iran border.

Some years ago now I saw a documentary about Iraq. It wasn't long after the gulf war. The narrator took the viewer to the Iraq Iran border where a river runs along it. As you know during the eighties these two nations fought a war. During or after this war saddam ordered some statues to be built of certain famous people of Iraq and they were to be placed on the Iraqi side of the river facing Iran. Each of these statues had their right arm outstretched and index finger pointing towards Iran. The narrator told us that this means that Iraq has sworn and vowed that Iran will be an ememy to Iraq forever.

Now George Bush has named these two countrys into the so called axis of evil. so why does'nt bush try to manipulate one against the other. He wants to go to war with Iraq, so why does he not try in the meantime to get backing from Iran for a war against Iraq.
Im sure Mr Bush can use this Iraqi sworn enemy thing to his advantaged. Afterall not many of his traditional allies are behind him.
Unless since this documentary saddam has ordered the statues to be taken down.

Yes, because the best way to stabilise the middle east and make everybody there love the west, is by causing a war dead smack in the centre of it involving two nations with wmd and a history of using them.

that statue thing is interesting and something I now want to look into. The 'enemy of your enemy is your ally' seemed to work well in Afghanistan but since these two countries are the US's sworn enemy it would be hard to pit the two against each other. It was tried during the Iran-Iraq war where the US sort of sided with Iraq and that turned out to be a bad move. Now, they hate the US more than they probably hate each other.

the statues were there (maybe not now) and relate entirely to the Iran-Iraq war and the disputed waterways that ostensibly provoked it.
This was not merely "a war"; it was one of the bloodiest -if not the bloodiest -conflicts since World War II.
Also, recall that there are strong racial barriers_Iranians are not Arabs; and strong religious barriers -Iranians are Shi'ite Muslims and an endless backlog of gripes dating back to the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 and British and later UK/US policy in the area.
Backing Iran would be tricky since (a) you'd upset Pakistan (b) the US backed Iraq last time around (c) the Iranian leadership has to be seen to hate the Great Satan and would never play ball.
Iranians are best left alone: mad, threatened, friendless and militarily weak.

Originally posted by Kano
Yes, because the best way to stabilise the middle east and make everybody there love the west, is by causing a war dead smack in the centre of it involving two nations with wmd and a history of using them.

Unfortunately, after use of WMD, the whole area won't be "stable" for centuries...It'll be really peaceful, though.

Stewards, you get that crazy notion our of your noggin' right now.

The U.S. tried that kind of manipulation throughout the Cold War in order to cut off the spread of communism. While it was understood that by doing so, we'd be causing trouble for ourselves later, we figured we'd deal with one problem at a time and at that moment, the Soviet Empire was the greatest threat.
Today alot of problems have sprung out of that method.

Im sorry guys, I guess I did not fully explain my meaning about the idea of what bush should do. I never meant that bush should get Iran on his side millitarily and they both go and invade Iraq. It was not this, But I thought that bush could get verbal backing from them. Its not a good idea if Mr bush goes in there without any consent from any middle eastern countries.

But don't get me wrong, I hate war, I think it is a real bloody mess and I always Question the balance of whether theres more to gain by going to war than there is to lose. But at the same time I do not like the idea of someone with saddam's reputation having these disgusting weopens along with all that power as a head of state and with the money that goes through his hands.

p.s.
(This is mainly in reply to MR Crowne's post)

a sensible reaction: the place is a lunatic asylum: just about on a par with the Balkans.
America has been burned there before. Estragon is always at his kindest when dealing with President Carter (although I have had occasion to contradict posters less familiar,perhaps, with the era and point out that he was the best of the bad: not one of the good); but even Old Jimmy found time away from his Ma and his Bro to get involved in a nightmarish mess there.
Try a search on "Operation Cyclone Carter" to see what happened then.

ESTRAGON, (what does this mean anyway).

ole boy Jimmy Carter the best of the bad are you serious. I thought he just recieved the nobel peace prize. I was told he is one of the few american pressies to not send troops into combat.
I saw a photo of him playing baseball with Fidel Castro and Castro was wearing a sports jacket with the american flag on it.
If Castro and Carter call eachother up and ask if they wanna come out and play baseball together, then I wonder what would have happened between them if Carter would have been the president instead of Kennedy during the Cuban missile crises.

stewards, that a limited nuclear would would have begun and the world to-day would have been very different. There is a fair bit of evidence that the big-talking loud, Ivy League, assertiveness of JFK scared the s**t out of Khrushchev; I think the nasty little Ukrainian would have tried to squeeze the much more amiable Carter.
Estragon is no more than a character from a play: but it's also the French for "tarragon" - a tall, thin, slightly bitter herb -and some would say that suits me better.
If you've nothing better to do follow the Cyclone search I suggested: Jimmy could be very sneaky and Jimmy caused a lot of trouble - but a choirboy compared to the others.