>> But you certainly didn't INCLUDE any other influences other than the US.
OK, regarding the Saudi rulers. We all know they're just a tool of the US. Their ambassador was told of the attack against Iraq before the US secretary of state was told. So you know they are an integral member of the family. And now we're told that the Saudi's secretly helped the US invade Iraq despite their public lies to the contrary. Isn't it redundant to first criticize the US, and then waste more ink to criticize their secret confidantes ?
>> Mighty convenient, I would opine
More than convenient. Practically mandated by the facts. Just as a reminder, wasn't it the Saudi's who out of the blue, supported the Nicaraguan insurgents, in support of US policy, in the deal of Arms for Hostages with Iran. Shouldn't I be given a pass for thinking that the Saudi's are just an expedient proxy for the US ?
>> The question should be WHY I had to convince you in the first place? Why didn't you obtain the facts,
Ahem, again, I'll remind that the Pres of the US at the time was referring to the Afghan mujahideen as "freedom fighters", and was making it very obvious the US was assisting them. Maybe Mr Reagan was not attuned to the nuances of exactly how the deal worked, but hey, we were all naive then, and thought the president's word was his bond. Until the current one came along with his tales of yellow cake. |
