SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Fred Levine who wrote (67344)1/18/2003 2:11:51 AM
From: 49thMIMOMander  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
<Attacked and gassed Iran >

I think one should start this with the UK-US ousting of the Iran prime minster Mossadeg, and installation
of the "US-puppet" Shah, resulting later on in the Iranian revolution and Khomeini. Plus the factors
that Iraq was and is, especially Saddam and Baath, the least religious, most secular regime, group in the
area.(skipping the Kurds).

Plus the attempts at "regime change" by Iran for Irak, as well as a "western" need for destabilizing
Iran, fear of at worst a close cooperation by Iran-Irak, as well as how the present borders were drawn.

Although people of today, outside the area, maybe do not know, remember this, the people having
lived through it, or the offspring of those who lived through it, know it very well.

Ilmarinen

couple of factors to remeber for Kuwait are

- why and when the Kuwaiti borders were drawn the way they were
- Kuwaiti steps towards independence, some kind of parliement
- Kuwaiti vote for becoming a part of Iraq
- Kuwaiti role during the Iran-Irak war, support turned debt.
- plus some more leading up to Glaspie

And the general rule that former colonies when achieved independence
usually have some good reasons for changing the borders their colonial
masters made for them, plus the old thing about those "natives" who
were the local helpers, those who were in opposition to the colonial master,
and how that playes out after independence.

Plus the difference between "political independence" and "economical independence",
right to nationalize not just political power but also economy,etc..
(even to correct how history, or as it is often said, "his-story", is written)



To: Fred Levine who wrote (67344)1/20/2003 6:46:33 AM
From: zonder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
My older son's (who's wife had a terrific baby 8 hours ago

Congratulations granddaddy! <ggg>

>>What was his "harm" before the inspectors arrived???<<
Just annihilated opposition, including the gassing of Halabja. Attacked and gassed Iran when he saw they were in a disorganized state. Probably killed a million people. Invaded Kuwait--you know all this


All that was a decade ago. Again: What was his harm before the inspectors recently arrived?

Do you have any doubt that if he thought he would succeed, that he has NO ethical or moral barriers that could inhibit him?

Possibly not. The question is: What is the best way to prevent any aggression from this country?
(1) Try to take all his weapons away and try to ensure he will never again find or make any more (Impossible, even in the short term. Even stupid, if the plan includes invasion and further antagonizing this country)
(2) Make sure he knows he will never succeed in any further aggressions because the rest of the world is united against him, and in any case, the US is dying to invade in the smallest excuse. (Effective - this is why he did not attack anyone in the past ten years)

Other states have oil and we're not threatening them.

There has to be some sort of an excuse of a reason, of course, otherwise only the very dumb would support Bush. You, on the other hand, find his argument (that Saddam is evil, has weapons, etc) convincing.

You think Bush could possibly threaten Russia? Saudi Arabia? They choose Iraq because it has HUGE oil reserves that are close to the surface (cheap extraction), the country is alone and vulnerable, and there is a bit of an excuse to attack.