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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (162076)	2/25/2003 3:32:48 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579680

Russia first." In the 80s? I thought the USSR was backing Iran then. If not, why is the pecking order material? I didn't realize you where just talking about the 80s but the Soviets were still selling Iraq weapons then. Of course, you don't think we or the Germans were selling military stuff to Iraq in the 90s, do you? That would be the ultimate insult to the American public. <g> The pecking order matters because a lot of people try to claim that we were the main, or at least a major arms supplier for Iraq, or that Iraq was a close ally of ours or that Saddam was an American client. None of which is true. Look.....I consider the US and Germany to be quality countries and not 'hos trying to make a fast buck. To ignore that our foreign policy is fukked at times does none of us any good. That's why I don't think the amounts are material, its the intent behind the amounts that is most important. You keep making that point like it makes everything okay. It was ok, if selling weapons to third world countries (or in Iraq's case a third world country with more money because it has oil) is ok. In hindsight it can be argued that it would be better if we had not sold them the weapons, but it really wouldn't have been much better. In hindsight.....why hindsight? Why wasn't it argued then? We knew then that Saddam was a ruthless bastard. The net practical effect of the sale is that the money went to the US instead of France. So......if we are going to trade with the devil, lets at least make more money than France, right? There was also a concern that Iran might overrun Iraq, and if the weapon sales helped prevent that then they were not all bad. I don't understand. You have scumbag number one and scumbag number two. Neither is good. Then how is it better that Iran didn't overrun Iraq? I don't think we sold them chemical weapons or anthrax or enrinched uranium. If we did that would be a bit different then helcopters and trucks. Yes, we sold them antrax and chemical agents used in WMD; however, Iraq promised us they would not use them in WMD. I am not sure about the uranium. Are you defending what should be considered rather questionable dealings on the part of the US because they happened under two Rep. regimes, or do you think its unAmerican to criticize American interactions with other nations no matter how nefarious they are.......or is it unAmerican to criticize a Rep. president but its okay to trash a Dem. one? None of the above. I just think that some people, perhaps including you make too big of deal of these weapon sales. If you can prove we sold them antrax, nerve gas and enriched uranium then I would have a different opinion. I have posted links before; here's still another: cursor.org So please, I would really like to understand the rules you all play under. To a large extent we all play under different rules, just like you and Al do. You all have different opinions and stress different ideas even if you are often on the same side on some major issues. Al and I may have differing opinions but at least he and I agree that there are rules I had thought all of us still played under that had to do with morality and honesty. If its immoral for someone to sell anthrax to Saddam, then its just as immoral for the US gov't no matter what foreign policy scheme it has up its sleeve......IMO. ted