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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (81149)	3/11/2003 10:10:29 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As to our support of Iraq vs Iran - yes we provided some credits, but as has been discussed - we were far outsold and out moneyed by the French and Russians. His troops use Russian armor and weapons and fly French aircraft. Right. How many Iranian ships did the French and Russians sink? How many Iranian airliners did the French and Russians shoot down? US support for Iraq in that war went far beyond "credits".

To: aladin who wrote (81149)	3/11/2003 10:32:31 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There was absolutely nothing in the alliance to require us to actively prevent civilian population to reach arms depots in southern Iraq (but we did it anyway so as to keep Saddam around). Nor was there any reasons that we could not shoot down Iraqi gunships that were firing on civilians. The war had not ended yet. We were free to shoot down whatever Iraqi gunship near Kuwait that we wanted. Also, you minimize the role of US in the war. We provided intel for Saddam to help him with his chemical attacks. We asked Saudi to give Saddam the money he needed to buy those French and Russian weapons you talk about. We asked UN to stop considering Iran's complains about the Saddam's use of chemical weapons (a ban that had been in effect since World War One) and when none of that was enough, we came within inches of actually fighting side by side with Saddam. The relation of all this to the present is that our predicament is of our own making. And until we understand why we continue to be so very wrong in our foreign policy from helping Khomeini to oust Shah, to helping Saddam to fight Khomeini, to helping the Taliban and bin Ladin (yes, they too were the State department's children) we will be repeating horrible mistakes over and over again. I can very well see how in 15 years there will be a debate about how we saved those ungrateful bastards in Iraq and now they are bent on destroying us...just wait and see. ST PS The self rightous Europeans should all be hung for their crimes against humanity. The Brits have the honor of making it to the top of that list fallowed closely by the French. But how is that related to this debate? We are not going to war because the French or Russians are against it...so stay focus on our side of the table.

To: aladin who wrote (81149)	3/11/2003 1:16:05 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

<In 1991 we were constrained by a multi-lateral alliance> No, actually, we weren't. Bush1 made it clear that he was going to act (to liberate Kuwait), whether he had allies or not. And there is some (soft, I'll admit) evidence, that the Saudis and others wanted us to keep going to Baghdad. If we had wanted to, our soldiers could have reached Baghdad in 24-48 hours, from their positions at the cease-fire. We could have done it with almost zero incremental cost, and nobody could have stopped us. We chose to leave Saddam in power. We were "constrained" by our policy of Realism. Realism is short-hand for: A foreign policy devoid of any moral compass, that exclusively seeks short-term economic/military/political gain, that ignores all longterm consequences, ignores all secondary and tertiary consequences, has forgotten all the ideals in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. It amounts to permanent crisis management. And man, does it hurt when the Law of Unintended Consequences circles around and bites us on the butt.