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: Elsewhere who wrote (121725)	12/17/2003 7:08:25 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>>Iraqi Official: Saddam Held in Baghdad>>> Now if another Iraqi tells what hotel he is staying at, the world may be saved the trouble of a trial Sig@looselips.com story.news.yahoo.com

To: Elsewhere who wrote (121725)	12/17/2003 8:16:07 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

..apology or at least distancing from having employed Saddam as a useful pawn against the greater enemy of Iran Should we apologize first for employing Stalin and Mao as pawns against the greater (or more immediate) enemies of Hitler and Imperial Japan?

To: Elsewhere who wrote (121725)	12/17/2003 2:44:51 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What I would like to see is some kind of apology or at least distancing from having employed Saddam as a useful pawn against the greater enemy of Iran Why just us, Jochen? We gave Saddam just enough assistance to make sure he didn't lose. This was a policy wholeheartedly supported by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, all the Gulfies, who were all to a man terrified of a radical Iran making itself great in the Gulf and turning its guns on Saudi Arabia (remember the seizure of the Great Mosque in Mecca?). Only the power of Iraq could check Iran.

To: Elsewhere who wrote (121725)	12/17/2003 3:18:18 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No, that's not the point. What I would like to see is some kind of apology or at least distancing from having employed Saddam as a useful pawn against the greater enemy of Iran, similar to what Mrs. Albright said about "serious mistakes" of 1970ies US foreign policy in South America. Doesn't this amount to saying that you don't care what policy America adopts now, even if it's the right one - you won't approve until we have "apologized" enough for past "mistakes"? Meantime, Bush is for democracy and human rights in Iraq and has already announced the date of turnover of political power to the Iraqis. We are doing everything in our power to announce that, while only we can fight the insurgency at the moment, we are building the Iraqi forces and political systems so they can take over their own country ASAP, we don't want it as a colony. What more does the left want? Sometimes it's easy to get the idea that the left is against freedom and democracy itself, if it means they have to support any policy of George W Bush. They don't want to be confused by a Republican administration that is not for the status quo and realpolitik. They know whom they hate, don't confuse them with new facts.

To: Elsewhere who wrote (121725)	12/17/2003 6:42:17 PM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

Jochen, I think the last speech Bush gave in London and a previous speech he gave to Win's bugaboo outfit, (I can't think of their name right now), had some very clear language in that regard although not specifically in regard to Iraq. We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold. whitehouse.gov Actually, I think his language was considerably stronger than Albrite's.