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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ratan lal who wrote (2529)	10/4/2001 12:14:45 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

Ok then be brave and admit that we have supported the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, king of Saudi Arabia and kuwait for their cheap oil Taking a deep breath here. I am not an expert on this at all, but I do have opinions.-g- I don't think oil is the only reason, but it's a reason. To the extent that our support predated the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Cold War was also a reason. To the extent that stability in and of itself is a goal, that is also a reason. Suez Canal. The Great Game. Stuff like that. What we do is not about morality, if that's what you mean, but morality does matter in how we do things. and screw the ordinary citizens who are being suppressed by these 'leaders' faithful to the US. Did we want ordinary citizens to be screwed? No. Do we care whether ordinary citizens are screwed. I think yes. Is there a ruler on earth, or in history, that did not screw someone? I think not. If a ruler screws 10% of the people, he's better than one who screws 90% of the people. Does that mean that we should not support anyone because neither are perfect, or support the leader who screws 10% of the people because he's better than the other one? I'd prefer the one who screws 10% of the people to the one who screws 90% of the people, but I'd rather someone who wouldn't screw anyone. If you find him, let us know. And we supported Osama Bin ladedn to terrorize Russia. I think OBL was a minor player in that particular go-round. The Soviet Union was invading the sovereign nation of Afghanistan and we were helping the Afghanis repel them. The irony is not lost on anyone. And if and when these 'leaders' dont do our bidding or allah forbid they should terrorise us, then we will go after them and 'replace' them. Well, the terrorize part is something we aren't going to put up with anymore, so you're right there. As for "doing our bidding," selling us oil is an economic activity that benefits both sides to the transaction. They don't have to sell us oil if they don't want to. It's cheaper to buy it than to try to take it away.

To: ratan lal who wrote (2529)	10/4/2001 12:44:26 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Rather odd Ratan that you would be offended the fact that US spends so much of its annual GDP on a product that we found, developed, and had nationalized (stolen) by these nations. What greater form of economic aid could the US provide to the region? It's not like we're just giving them money in foreign aid handouts... They actually are selling us something... Now what they do with that money is their business, right?? Otherwise... wouldn't having the US try to dictate how they spend the money be considered "meddling" in the national affairs of other nations? Hawk