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: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (87510)	3/28/2003 10:35:01 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Very educational reading there: I would assume the British in 1920 , just 3 years after WW1 and their big losses, were a different people in regard to warfare and personal considerations than they are today. And gas was used by and against them then. I am unable to compute why the Iraqis should continue to violate the rules and call down the bombings upon themselves for the sake of not paying taxes. Were they being enslaved or tortured by the Brits? Perhaps there was little communication between villages or a part of the ego that would not let them recognise any type of government other than their own. Which still seems the case in the three major ethnic divisions in Iraq, since it is only the terror, murder, and fear of Saddam that has kept them "in line" while wanting to destroy the villain. . But that is history, enemies become friends and then it rotates The coalition will give them another shot at freedom, and if they are wise they will not give an ^&$**%$ like Saddam 100% of the vote again. Sig

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (87510)	3/28/2003 11:17:46 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But Sarmad, I am shocked, I say shocked that you would have resentment towards the British for the gassing of women and children. Did you not read your own article well? Freed to impose their political will in Iraq, the British then created a client kingdom, under Faisal ibn Hussain, the son of the Sharif of Mecca. The British did not want Faisal to appear a puppet, so held a referendum in 1921 and almost certainly fixed its result - to give some legitimacy to his appointment. ... The Iraqi air force - which the British had built up, trained and equipped - carried on the work after Iraq became nominally independent in 1932. So you see, here it is in black and white: it was the legal government of Iraq that did the dirty deed. Surely you don't think that the British are responsible for the people of Iraq. That was the job Malik Faisal. What's that you say? Faisal came to power on the backing of the Brits and he felt no loyalty to his people? Oh come on Saramad, the British brought law and order and infrastructure to Iraq, now you expect them to bring a good leader too? They were just protecting their national interests by putting a corrupt and brutal leader in charge. Other than that, their hands are clean. What a great hypocrites they are! To put in subhuman monarchs in power and profit from their monstrous deeds only to claim the higher moral ground against the same people later on. Our moral friends here will hold a Swiss banker responsible for using the letter of the law for not returning the possessions of holocaust victims. But they feel no responsibility for the actions of monsters that their elected governments put in power. They are all so mightily brave in deposing the brutal dictators, but not while those same dictators are towing the line and keep the gravy train going. Shame on them for not having the courage to look at themselves in the mirror. And shame on them for their selective morality and selective justice. Sun Tzu