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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (1032)	5/9/2003 11:30:12 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 20773

Sometime we could also discuss whether if, by not going to Baghdad in 1991, Bush I made a fatal mistake, that led inevitably to 9-11. I agree it was a tactical mistake not to do that, though whether or not 9-11 would have been avoided is questionable, since I don't think Saddam was actually suporting al-Qaeda in any significant way. But if we had overturned Saddam then, we would not have had to base so many troops in Saudi Arabia to enforce the no fly zones and protect against future incursions, and it was those troops which were the nominal catalyst for Bin Laden's hatred, so maybe he would have focussed more on Israel than the US. But at the time, I don't think the US public would have accepted the overthrow of Saddam, given that we were working under a UN mandate at the time and the UN was strongly against going beyond the liberation of Kuwait. And arguably at that time the balance of power and ability between US forces and the Republican Guard was much more equal, ten years of sanctions hadn't attrited their military equiment, we didn't have JDAMS, we had used many of our cruise missles up already, their air defenses were stronger (they shot down many more planes in Gulf War I than II), we hadn't developed the friendly fire protections or the coordinated strategies we have now (as I recall, our losses to friendly fire in Gulf I were more than our total losses in Gulf II, and that was just the easy fighting in the desert in Gulf I), we know that they had chemical weapons then and the willingness to use them and we were nowhere nearly as prepared for chems then as we are now. So strategically, I don't think it was really a possible option to go to Baghdad in 1991. Though I wish we had had that ability.

To: tsigprofit who wrote (1032)	5/10/2003 3:15:58 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

ACCORDING TO PLAN Re: Sometime we could also discuss whether if, by not going to Baghdad in 1991, Bush I made a fatal mistake, that led inevitably to 9-11. Bush I made no mistakes. He was completely in control of the situation from the very earliest days when he hired Saddam in 1963. The events that led to the mistake that Saddam made on 8/4/90 were orchestrated by Bush I. So was the deceit that Saddam assumed gave him the green light to take back the insurrectionary 19th Province. Sparing you a bit of the history (not for lack of trying on this SI oracle of insanity and incomplete information) Operation 911 was not rendered inevitable by the calculations of Bush I, it was enabled. * Re: We then proceeded to put bases in Saudi Arabia, which was an offense to the Muslims - as outsiders were in their holy sites. As was enabled the remarkable psyops of the CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer which you apparently haven't quite sorted out yet. This story is for U.S. domestic consumption. It's not the real story, or the story that you'll read in al Jazeera or the Jordan Times. But Murderin' Murdock's Fascist Faux News has burned this lie into your consciousness. You now believe that there is an implacable swarthy foreign enemy out there. The propaganda worked on millions of Americans, so don't be embarrasssed about being naive. I once was just like you. Then I started to read. And a completely different reality emerged when I finally began to understand the intricate lace of lies the spin-meisters at Hill & Knowlton and Rendon & Associates weave earning hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars to lie to them. ****** Re: Maybe if Bush I had finished the job in 91, then got out of Iraq, and never created bases in Saudi, Bin Laden would never have done 9-11. You utterly fail to understand the game, which is only this week being exposed for all to see. Thursday, it was revealed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under duress, that their contract with Halliburton wasn't as it was presented to the American public. Indeed, it was entirely more consistent with the views of those of us who said months ago that the U.S. leadership cabal was attempting to steal Iraq's oil. The "classified" portions of the Halliburton contract define this theft. Today's announcement, issued in a fit of hubris, that the UN is dead and the "Occupying Government of the U.S./UK" is in charge in Iraq leaves no doubt. We have stolen Iraq's oil. It is a done deal. We are now only to determine how cruel the neo-fascists are in destroying the lives of the 24 million victims of this astonishing rape of a natural resource for a corporatist/criminal cabal. Many of us feel that the corporados are aiming to create as many casualties of this occupation as possible. ****** Re: Bin Laden would never have done 9-11 Apparently you haven't figure this out. Bin Laden had as much to do with 9/11 as Lee Harvey Oswald had to do with the Joint Chief's decision to get rid of JFK. ***** Operation 911....... Operation Northwood, redux? Message 17525586 **** A final word for those of you who glossed over this, and decided the last link was too much bother: "What good fortune for those in power that people do not think."** --Adolf Hitler