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 : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (43538)	1/11/2003 5:09:28 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

Latif's strawman arguments To: ilatif@yahoo.com CC: Times@iranian.com Mr Latif: First, opposing the war on Iraq is not the same as supporting Saddam, nor is opposition to the war limited to reactionary Islamists. It is in fact a world-wide phenomenon which has very little to do with Saddam's alleged "Islamic Credentials" that you harp on (and only you seem to take seriously) or the Pan-Islamism that you have conveniently used as a strawman argument. Second, the examples you provide of cases where the US has "liberated Moslems", upon more careful examination, only prove the theory that the US uses people and then casts them aside when convenient: The US used Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, and then cast them aside to later flirt with the Taliban when Afghanistan presented a route to access Central Asia's oil. It had nothing to do with "liberating Moslems". The US role in the Balkans was not about defending Islam either. The real reason was to establish a secure route for oil & gas pipelines out of the Caucasus (see "A meeting of blood and oil: the Balkan factor in Western energy security"; Keith Fisher, J. of Southern Europe and the Balkans, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2002.) The PERSIAN Gulf war was not about "liberating Moslems" either; it was about promoting US interests by preventing the greater concentration of oil resources in Saddam's hands. It was about oil, and not Islam. The next war on Iraq is to "reshape the Middle East" to suit Israel, and not to defend Moslems. In fact, the case of IRaq is a perfect example of the theory that the US merely uses people when convenient and then casts them aside: The US used Iraq when it was convenient to oppose Iran and then cast them when Saddam was no longer convenient (remember what U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam in response to his plans to invade Kuwait: "We have no opinion.") The US then enouraged the Shi'ite uprising against Saddam, and then cast them aside too when they became inconvenient. After killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children through sanctions and pollution by depleted uranium weapons, the US is now is going to attack Iraq yet again but under the pretense of saving Iraqis from an evil ruler - which the US had supported and armed in the past. And if characterize these fact as "conspiracies" then you're the one who is in a stupor. J. Mohammadi