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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (3272)	1/23/2003 1:10:08 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Invading Iran was as much the US bidding as the US could possibly want at the time. The US armed him to do it! Nonsense. Please supply any support for the idea Iraq invaded Iran at American bidding. BTW at the time Iraq was armed primarily by the Russians. Iran had been armed by the Americans. Regarding Kuwait? The British drawn boundary lines landlocked Iraq and Kuwait was once part of the Basra Province. Irrelevant. All the countries in the region were once part of the Turkish empire and the British and French drew their boundaries after WWI. Kuwait is no more illegitimate than any other country in the region including Iraq. FWIW, the countries of Jordan and Iraq were created to be kingdoms given as a reward to members of the family of Hussein ibn Ali, the sharif of Mecca, who had betrayed Turkey for Britain during WWI. Bush the elder didn't have to start the war--Saddam would have withdrawn his troops if negotiations were more rasonable. Perhaps it should have been a matter for the world court. But, hey, the US don't want no world court! What a rewriting of history. Do you remember that the UN and virtually every country in the world supported the first war with Iraq? That many countries beseeched him to withdraw and he refused? un.org On 2 August 1990, Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait. On the same day, the Security Council adopted its resolution 660 (1990), condemning the invasion and demanding Iraq’s immediate and unconditional withdrawal its forces to the positions they had occupied the previous day. A few days later, the Council instituted mandatory arms and economic sanctions against Iraq. In all, over the period between 2 August and 29 November 1990, the Council adopted 12 resolutions on various aspects of the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, culminating in resolution 678 (1990). That resolution specified that if Iraq had not fully implemented by 15 January 1991 all of the Council's resolutions relating to the occupation of Kuwait, Member States cooperating with Kuwait's legitimate Government were authorized to use "all necessary means" to compel Iraq to do so and restore international peace and security in the area. The deadline passed and the next day, on 16 January 1991, the armed forces of the States cooperating with the Government of Kuwait began air attacks against Iraq, followed on 24 February by a ground offensive. Offensive operations were suspended as of midnight on 28 February 1991, by which time Kuwait City had been liberated and all Iraqi armed forces had vacated the territory of Kuwait. On 3 April 1991, the Council adopted resolution 687 (1991), setting detailed conditions for a formal ceasefire to end the conflict and establishing the machinery for ensuring implementation of those conditions. Following Iraq’s acceptance of the resolution’s provisions, the ceasefire became a formal one. Also see - arab.de You've probably been reading too much of the historical revisionism put out by the Chomsky cult. You can't believe that stuff. It's pure propaganda.

To: PartyTime who wrote (3272)	1/23/2003 7:34:34 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

In this post you've revealed yourself as a hypocrite. In your thread heading you post articles saying: 1) the US is wrong to go to war with Iraq unilaterally without international agreement - here's one: globeandmail.com Canadians oppose war in Iraq without UN and 2) the US should use containment and deterrence instead of war with Saddam: nytimes.com Why are containment and deterrence -- the strategies that worked for the four decades of the Cold War -- suddenly considered more dangerous than poking the snake? Yet in the post above you reveal, probably unintentionally, that the problem for you isn't unilateralism because during the first Gulf war when we had massive international support - you were against war then too. And you aren't really a proponent of containment and deterrence either because you think Saddam was justified all along in invading and annexing his neighbor. The British drawn boundary lines landlocked Iraq and Kuwait was once part of the Basra Province. In other posts I've seen Karen Lawrence and Thomas M agree Saddam developing nuclear weapons is perfectly reasonable - OK that's not a surprise for Thomas M but Karen Lawrence- that was a surprise. So much for wanting to contain Saddam. You antiwar people are a bunch of hypocritical liars. You advance arguments you really don't believe in - as I just demonstrated. You specifically, Partytime, are a liar. Why would you put articles in your thread header advocating positions you don't really support when it gets down to it? You guys really are just a bunch of knee-jerk anti-Americans. You are objectively pro-Saddam. What else can you call it when you guys argue Saddam should have nuclear weapons, when you argue Kuwait should really be part of Iraq anyway. Now why would anyone support a brutal thug like Saddam who has the blood of over 1.5 million people on his hands? There can be only one reason - because he is the most visible enemy American has.