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: jlallen who wrote (84340)	7/28/2000 9:30:08 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

If the Arab allies did not want to play, too bad. The Arab allies were providing the forward bases that would have supported the invasion. The provision of those bases was delicately negotiated with full knowledge of the political difficulty that an American presence posed for the Saudis, and was contingent on Saudi approval of the scope of operations. To have launched an invasion of Iraq from Saudi Arabia without the approval of the Saudis would have meant violating an agreement with a vital ally, and would have placed the Saudi government in an insupportable political position. Look what is has cost in terms of human life and military expenditures we continue to make in the region due to Saddam's provocation. We've spent a long time looking for a way to get forward basing rights in the Middle East. Saddam provided us with an excuse. He did us a favor, in some ways. In terms of cost benefit analysis, Bush Sr. blew the calculation. Wrong. The potential risk of destabilizing the Saudi government was far in excess of the threat posed by Saddam. Saddam is a minor annoyance. A resurgent anti-American Muslim fundamentalist movement in Saudi Arabia is the stuff of which nightmares are made. our foreign policy should always be carreid out with our (US) interests as top priority. Maintaining a cozy relationship with a secure, conservative regime in Saudi Arabia holds a far higher priority in our hierarchy of interests than dealing with Saddam.

To: jlallen who wrote (84340)	7/28/2000 10:19:25 AM
From: Frederick Smart	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Saddam Still Has To Be Taken Out..... >>I did not agree with Neo then and do not now. If the Arab allies did not want to play, too bad. Look what is has cost in terms of human life and military expenditures we continue to make in the region due to Saddam's provocation. No. In terms of cost benefit analysis, Bush Sr. blew the calculation. It was a mistake not to take Saddam out when we were there in force and his army was beaten. I understand that hindsight is always 20/20 but our foreign policy should always be carreid out with our (US) interests as top priority. I think it was in our interest to eliminate Saddam despite our allies concerns. JLA>> We've just reverted to the Castro approach. Just like our Founding Father's weave & spin avoidance of the slavery issue, there's always a far higher longterm cost which has to be paid for letting evil have it's way. Just as in our failure to deal with Castro many years ago, Iraqi citizens are going to have to live through decades of turmoil, poverty and oppression because of our failure to deal with Saddam. Evil is like a black hole. If someone/somewhere/sometime doesn't put a moral stake in the ground to put it on notice it will simply take/suck/consume more and more light/trust/energy from individuals. For evil is the antithesis of love and light. And the only thing that feeds evil is FEAR. Individuals really have absolutely NOTHING to fear. FEAR is a figment of our individual & collective imaginations. The only thing that really exists in the universe is LOVE and LIGHT. Everything else which we define as these handwringing "problems" is manufactured by man. Remember, there are no problems. Only opportunities. For there is really NOTHING to fear. The best thing we can all do is to forgive and love Saddam so much that more and more of his people will feel empowered to see the world for the many opportunities that our out there. Saddam remains in power because we and the rest of the self-righteous world have defined him as "the problem." Defining him as "the problem" only makes his power elite define those who define him/them the enemy. All the great/masterful political black holes in history are classically identified by ONE thing: SPIN. Energy-taking black holes consume light and energy by taking energy/light from others. And the one thing they are so much better at than others is in defining/labelling/restricting/limiting those that try to define/label/restrict/limit them. For black holes have a slithering way of defining even the life-giving light from the sun into darkness. Confusing light for darkness is the essence of the "taking energy" game. The only thing that black holes cannot overcome is source of LOVE and light itself. For black holes derive their very power by contorting/converting/confusing love & light into these crazy manmade things which we give power to which are at the source of all of our personal and collective problems: FEAR. "WE" are the enemy and we don't even know it. We are just facing the wrong direction. "Let go", face and embrace the light and love is the answer. We all know this, but so very few people have the guts to practice this. Only the children have the guts. And "they shall lead." Peace. GO!!