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: Sam who wrote (114147)	9/8/2003 5:58:18 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Aside from the entirely unnecessary non-sequitar of the Assad reference, may I point out that the US never had any problems with setting up and/or supporting a number of brutal dictatorships during the Cold War? Why do you find that "unnecessary"? Syria had a fundamentalist uprising and killed upwards of 30,000 people in quashing it. Saddam faced a Shiite uprising and quashed that with 10's of thousands killed. That's the blood the US and Desert Storm coalition have on their hands Sam.. The blood that Bilow suggests should be permitted to continue to flow by supporting such regimes in order to avoid having to get involved in cleaning up the region. it was the Reagan administration that used and encouraged Saddam to counter the Iranian revolution. Sam.. it was EVERY nation in the region that supported Saddam's war against Iran. They feared the Shiite revolutionary threat more than they feared Saddam's nationalistic aspirations. And they figured that BOTH sides would bleed themselves to death.. So don't claim that the US "loved" Saddam. He just happened to be someone who was expending his national treasure doing what we wanted to do. It's just simply ridiculous to assert that the US has some kind of omnipotent power in the region. Were that the case, we wouldn't currently be having problems, now would we? Going after Saddam at the expense of unity in the war against Al Qaeda was, as I suppose you know I believe, foolish at best. Hardly... As I've stated numerous times, Iraq is the doorstep to the heart of Islamic militantcy, Saudi Arabia. Without an invasion of Iraq, the Saudi royal family would not have dared risk taking on their religious militants. Nor would they have had any pressure to do so since US troops were in their country and we'd "never" do anything that might bring harm to them. removing the guy has both strengthened the enemies who matter most here, has weakened the trust and support of our friends, has cost us money and lives that need not have been spent in this way at this time, and has distracted our attention from the real battle that must, as we agree, be won. What friends? If France, Germany, and Russia had been "friends" of the US, they would not have directly acted to undermine the binding resolutions pending against Saddam's regime. And now, after they all stated they wanted to participate in a post-war Iraq, they are nowhere to be seen, or trying to extract concessions from the US before deploying troops or money.. And even them, the money they are willing to spend on Iraq is a pitiful amount of approx $150 million. Our "friends" all have big mouths, but tight pockets. Friends don't smirk and make snide remarks when their "comrades" decide to take action to uphold international law (UNSC binding resolutions). These are fair weather friends who have never been friendly unless there's some profitable angle to the relationship. When France was bogged down in the debacle of French-Indochia, who attempted to come to their aid? Who covertly sent aircraft to support them in their folly at Dien Bien Phu? The US. And who took on the task (and failed) of reshaping the ex-French colony throughout the 60's and 70's?? But let's face it. Neither the French or Germans have the resources, or the willpower, to undertake such an extensive policy of trying to reshape the middle east. But let them suffer a 9/11 style attack, and I betcha we'd see a tremendous change of heart in their public opinion. They don't support us because they don't really understand what the US has been through. And they foolishly believe they can "control" or appease the Islamic fundamentalists. But those with some semblance of understanding of the issues involved know that the militant can't be appeased, or easily controlled. We're coming up on Sept 11th once again.. two years after the day that over 50,000 innocent civilians were targeted for slaughter in NYC and DC. It would be nice that a few folks here take the time to recognize just how lucky we were on that day. The loss of 25,000 to 50,000 people on that day would not have seen just a surgical approach as Bush has followed. We would have likely had national mobilization and seen US troops invading and occupying every nation where these fundamentalists have taken root. Hawk