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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (18484)	12/30/2002 10:27:45 AM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93284

Cummings is thinking.....very slooooowly.

To: jttmab who wrote (18484)	12/30/2002 11:31:27 PM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 93284

It's right there in front of you. You have some better idea? What is it? Watch your context. Reagan and Bush both operated in an atmosphere of realistic assessment of the situation. It's an intractable situation, and if something turned out bad it's not for lack of trying. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."

To: jttmab who wrote (18484)	12/31/2002 12:40:02 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 93284

The principles and values in regard to Iraq during the tenure of Reagan Bush were as follows: 1. Containment of the Soviet communist threat. Our values of freedom and liberty are not in alignment with Soviet style communism. Therefore, containment of their influence in the region and threat of expansion was a priority. 2. The free flow of oil with no clear victor in the conflict with Iran. A victorious dictator is not in alignment with the principles of a democratic Republic. Free flowing oil, which would have another disastrous effect on our economy if it stopped flowing, was a priority since our economy had just started recovering from the awful stagflation of the Carter years. It's important to note in 1980, President Carter proclaimed the "Carter Doctrine," declaring the U.S. was willing to use military force to prevent an outside power from conquering the Gulf. It's also important to note our military was in desperate need of rebuilding, and was considered a laughing-stock by many nations of the world after Carter's failed attempt at freeing our hostages from Iran. The Iran-Iraq war, played a significant part in our foreign policy decisions. Reagan and Bush's policy toward Iraq was in no small measure influenced by events in Iran. Reagan and Bush were also influenced by the Carter hostage debacle. The principles of a free people would not stand idly by while another country held our citizens hostage. In hindsight, mistakes were made. However, foreign policy hindsight always looks twenty-twenty when viewed from the vantage point of history. In the big picture of foreign policy, Reagan and Bush wanted to end the threat of Soviet communism. And it was no mere coincidence that the Berlin wall fell during President Bush's tenure in office. History will remember Reagan and Bush as unshakably principled foreign policy leaders who skillfully ushered in a new era of peace between two huge military super-powers, thus ensuring the continued advance of mankind toward progress, liberty and freedom. The left will incorrectly remember the opposite and focus on those foreign policy decisions which could have been improved upon, which most of them never had the temerity or insight to dispute then. What else is new... Your turn.