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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (219150)	1/16/2002 4:29:25 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

There was no mandate to march on Baghdad, either in domestic politics or internationally. It would have involved occupying the country, which we were not prepared to do. Besides, we thought the internal opposition would take care of it. It failed, as did the "palace coup" attempt, but such things are always chancy. It has not been US policy to support authoritarian regimes, per se. It has been US policy to deal with existing regimes, whatever their character, unless there were a perceived security threat. Even in the Middle East, Israel and Turkey are democracies, Egypt and Jordan are quasi- democratic, and we have encouraged greater political participation in regimes like the Saudi's. The Wahhabi sect happened to be the sect that the Saudis followed. When the current dynasty succeeded Turkish rule, it was natural that it become official. They have discouraged competing sects, so it is not quite true that the schools can teach any old kind of fundamentalism. "....a typical American lack of foresight, something that has been much commented on in this century...." Yeah, we are such dummies that we are the pre- eminent power in the world.............

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (219150)	1/16/2002 4:30:21 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

>>You don't think stopping one day short of Bagdad (when the Saudis whistled) might have contributed any to our current 'Saddam' problems, do you? The consensus was that the Iraqi military woud kill him. The idea was to save American lives. Also, the US was operating under a UN mandate - and what you describe was not allowed. Bush43 did not make that mistake. The Libs don't like it - they call it "unilateralism". It was Clinton who allowed Saddam to live when internal groups were willing to kill him. It was Clinton who let Saddam refuse UN inspections. >>Or earlier, tilting towards Iraq and turning a blind eye to their biological and chemical warfare developments... or even earlier, facilitating armament resupply during the 10 year long, murderous Iran war. You are very naive. The US supported Iraq in that war to keep Iran from being the monolith in that part of the world. Failed ex prez Carter totally screwed up in Iran but now the people remember the Shah with fondness. Carter should be so lucky. >>Since it has been official US policy ever since 1929 (stated or otherwise) to support authoritarian strongman types in the oil producing regions of the middle east... just so long as they kept the oil flowing... and oppose anyone who might upset the apple cart (popular leader or otherwise).... More accurately, it has been US policy to prevent worse people from taking over and controlling the region. >>That this was also OUR foreign policy for low these many years, (and now it has reared back and bit us in the ass) merely shows a typical American lack of foresight... something that has been much commented on in this century. You are the one who has offered no foresight. You offer hindsight - bad as you are at it. Seems if you had had your way the US would be in a real mess today.