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.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (4315)	9/23/2001 10:25:44 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

>>Last, Chomsky's MAIN POINT, which you conveniently ignore, is that we shouldn't have been giving Saddam weapons. That is the main point. Do you disagree with this?<< Well, Chomsky conveniently leaves out a few key points (as usual). This occurred, of course, in the context of the Iran-Iraq war with its various shifting alliances. Iran was perceived as a great threat to the security of the region, and, among other things, its attacks on international shipping (particularly Kuwaiti shipping) led to a substantial reflagging operation. The aggressions against Kuwait and others panicked the moderate Arab states (including the Saudis)who put severe pressure on Washington to help their Arab brethren in Iraq (the Iranians being non-Arab Sunnis, and thus always distrusted in the Shi'a Arab world). It was in this context, and in the general perception that the radical Iranian regime posed much more of a threat than Iraq (this was all pre-Desert Storm), that any aid was given to Iraq. Now, there are many Kurds in many countries, and some Kurds did take part in the war on behalf of the Iranians. At the end of the war, in March 1988, 5,000 Kurds were killed by chemical weapons in Halabja. Iraq had bitterly accused the Kurds of killing thousands of Iraqis by more gruesome means, and this is probably true. Should we have given arms to Iraq? Well, let's look at the alternative--an Iranian win, with a planned progression into Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia, sparking a regional war, involving the Soviet Union, Syria, Eqypt,and Israel, many others. I am wondering how a President Chomsky would deal with that nightmare scenario, or indeed the dozens of nightmare scenarios each of our presidents has faced since World War Two. Of course, he doesn't have to, so it's easy to pontificate against the U.S. to those who do not understand all of the delicate nuances, and the need to sometimes do things that may harm a few to save millions.