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 (18193)	12/3/2002 8:30:11 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23908

What are you babbling about here? Indonesia invaded East Timor and slaughtered a large part of the population. Heeelllooooo McFly!!! What color is the sky in your world???!!! I distinctly stated that the UN MISSION protecting East Timor during its elections (remember the Aussies going there?) was MASSIVELY supported by American military air and sea lift... You see Tommie boy... No other UN nation, other than Russia, has anywhere NEAR the American capacity to move equipment and men to an area, and then support them while they perform their mission.. The UN is NOTHING as a military or peace-keeping force, WITHOUT MASSIVE US logistical and financial support. So in my eyes, if we have to bear the major cost of UN operations around the world, spending our tax dollars to support them, then I figure we have EVERY RIGHT to make sure our interests are represented. And our interest in Iraq is to get rid of Saddam and replace him with someone/something less threatening.... And what's even more amusing is that your opposition to the US overthrowing Saddam seems rather strange given your hatred of other despots such as Somoza... If we "created Saddam" (which I don't believe did), then we have the obligation and duty to bring him down... Hawk

To: Thomas M. who wrote (18193)	12/4/2002 7:25:21 AM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

The US provided major military support. We accelerated arms shipments as the slaughter increased, providing over 90% of their arms at the peak. I don't suppose that you have any evidence backing these claims, do you? In particular, your assertion that the U.S. provided "over 90%" of the arms used by Indonesia in East Timor? LPS5

To: Thomas M. who wrote (18193)	12/11/2002 9:25:35 AM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

<<< Suharto's bloody rise might not have succeeded had the United States not secretly equipped his troops. A state-of-the-art field communications system, flown in at night by the US Air Force planes, had high frequencies that were linked directly to the CIA and the National Security Agency advising President Johnson. Not only did this allow Suharto's generals to co-ordinate the killings, it meant that the highest echelons of the US administration were listening in and that Suharto could seal off large areas of the country. In the American embassy, a senior official drew up assassination lists for Suharto, then ticked off the names when each was murdered. >>> Gee, why would America the Knight in Shining Armor do something like that? <<< The bloodbath was the price of Indonesia becoming, as the World Bank described it, "a model pupil of the global economy". That meant a green light for western corporations to exploit Indonesia's abundant natural resources. The Freeport Company got a mountain of copper and gold in the province of West Papua. An American and European consortium got the nickel. The giant Alcoa company got the biggest slice of Indonesia's bauxite. Other companies took the tropical forests of Sumatra and Kalimantan; and Suharto and his cronies got a cut that made them millionaires and billionaires. >>> zmag.org