Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (65811)	12/7/1999 3:24:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 108807

Festus shot John but it was in self defense as Mathew soon learned.

To: jbe who wrote (65811)	12/7/1999 3:37:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Did you see that Maskadov (Chechan president) wife and son are in Russia now? The news suggests they voluntarily moved to Russia - do you believe it? I have no doubt they wanted to get out of Grozny. Russia says it has opened a safe corridor out of Grozny, but with bombs still falling, the safety of that escape route was uncertain. cnn.com BTW that small picture there depicts a pretty dismal scene.

To: jbe who wrote (65811)	12/7/1999 3:51:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 108807

But it's all your fault, Joan! (<vlg> aka ;-() To circle back to the beginning, forgotten as I'm sure it's been by the innocent bystanders, this started with my response to your post Message 11093476, where, in Message 12199245, I argued that in addition to the retrospectively bad ending to the Gulf war, where Saddam was left to have his way with the people of Iraq, there is some evidence that the original Kuwait invasion could have been avoided if we hadn't been relatively cozy with Iraq at the time, and sending mixed messages. Why would Iraq get a mixed message? We'd ended up siding with them on the Iran-Iraq war. And "slightly", as Neocon claimed, is debatable: We sank Iranian ships, we shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, we shrugged off "friendly fire" from Iraq on our warships, we gave Iraq satellite intelligence for their war effort. Iraq was the clear aggressor in the war, and they used poison gas and everything, and we were on their side. Why were we on their side? If someone wants to argue Iran-Contra had nothing to do with it, well, they can, I'd argue otherwise, if I were going to argue anymore. If you want to look back farther for causes, you get into our long misbegotten relationship with Iran, Jimmy Carter's hostage crisis, the fall of the Shah and the rise of the Ayatollah, Nixon arming Iran to the teeth post '73, all the way back to the CIA-sponsored coup against Mossedegh(sp?) that put the Shah in power, in the Eisenhower administration. I didn't bring Reagan's name into it, I suppose the true believers can come up with some argument that Iran-Contra was another brilliant scheme that had an unfortunate glitch or something. Most people regard Iran-contra as a blot, I think, but what's the point of arguing? Of course, it's all my fault that the true believers didn't particularly want to take up the historical line. Lord knows, if I wanted to pick a fight about Reagan, I wouldn't do it here, I'd go over to the ever civil Neocon's "Lion" thread, where lionization of Reagan seems to be the order of the day. I leave it to the tag team to get in as many last words on the subject as they feel they need, I think it's sort of silly that everybody has to walk on eggshells lest they get offended at some less than reverent mention of Reagan, but that's life. Cheers, Dan.