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: Noel de Leon who wrote (115250)	9/19/2003 11:33:26 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Noel, Even still when you look at those companies - you are looking at systems and electronics that could be (and probably were) used for weapons manufacture. Not weapons themselves. We also sold a few bell helicopters that could have been converted for military use. However, the air force was largely Soviet (some french) and the weaponry in the army was entirely Soviet. So when people make claims like 'we backed them 100%' that may be true, but it doesn't tell the whole picture. Influence from Moscow was much larger through the late 80's than anything western. But they weren't a Soviet client either, just adept at playing the great powers off each other. John

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (115250)	9/19/2003 10:48:31 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Noel: So one could argue that poor US/western intelligence had some of the blame for these deaths. Yes, one could argue that. Do you remember the CIA budget cuts of the Clinton years? Here's a well documented article... 1996 CIA Budget Update.............Note the cuts, and the footnotes... fas.org My problem is that the 1 million Iraqis(560,000 children) died because of a boycott that was maintained even though(in hind sight) the WMDs were gone. So one could argue that poor US/western intelligence had some of the blame for these deaths.