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: Win Smith who wrote (16826)	1/19/2002 5:13:43 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As I recall the Iran/Iraq war, all major powers were relieved that two such nasty regimes were tied up shooting at each other. The US was totally opposed to the Ayatollah, and regarded Saddam as a nasty thug, but more or less compliant. That's not huge support. I don't believe the jet thing was on purpose. The Iranian mullahs are fools. If they had just kept quiet and stopped reminding everybody that they fund the terrorist Hizbullah organisation to the tune of $100 million per year, they could have had Saddam pounded for free, which would have only been to their benefit. The US has its own score to settle with Hizbullah (remember Beirut 1983?), and new evidence showing Hizbullah-Al Quaeda joint ventures are going to increase the motivation. Is the current AIPAC line that the US should be looking for a war with Iran, as well as one with Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Syria and who knows who else? It is the current US line that we are fighting a War against Terror. When Senators McCain and Lieberman say that we must finish the job in Iraq, they are not working for AIPAC but for the US.