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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (31210)	4/10/2003 12:20:41 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 74559

Yes, He was engaged in atrocities and used chemical weapons. During the Iran-Iraq war which the US found it was a good idea to have the Iranians being beaten. Officially the United States was neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict, but the administration had decided that geopolitic considerations required that Iraq not lose the war. There are sometimes that atrocities are good for the US as the case of the Iran-Iraq war showed. Remember when a Mirage hit the US frigate Stark? Iraq's pilot killed 1/3 of all US casualties in this latest adventure with a single hit. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger described the attack on the Stark as a "horrible error," and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was quick to apologize for the "unintentional incident." Evidently, the Mirage pilot had mistaken the Stark for an Iranian tanker. Iraq promised to pay compensation to the families of the 37 slain seamen, and reparations for damages to the frigate. In the aftermath of the Stark incident, the rhetoric coming out of Washington was of a forgiving nature where Iraq was concerned, while growing increasingly hostile in reference to Iran. eightiesclub.tripod.com The US even didn't take any action against Iraq. The US was happily re-flagging Kuwaiti oil tankers as the war ravaged on.