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: Maurice Winn who wrote (124473)	2/8/2004 9:02:07 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The artificial and arbitrary line drawn across the sand which created Kuwait caused a lot of problems. Saddam had it right that there shouldn't be a line. But he had it wrong that he should own everything. Hmmm... As I recall, every border that exists in the Mid-East is, to some extent, artificial and arbitrary. After all, the whole region used to be ruled by the Ottoman Turks. The USA gave Saddam lots of support; I dare say more support than he got from the French, Germans and Russians. Then why isn't the majority of Iraqi foreign debt owed to the US, and not France, Germany, and Russia? US support primarily consisted of intelligence support. And this only occurred AFTER 1983-84, during the Rumsfeld visit. Prior to that, Iraq had few, if any, official ties with the US government. This had been the case since 1967. The purpose of Rumsfeld visit was to seek to find a manner in which the US could support Saddam so as to prevent an Iranian victory. But it was also to express US concerns about chemical weapons and Iraq's support for terrorism (there were on the official State Dept list of such states). Additionally, one must recall that Saudi Arabia asked Reagan to intervene in Iraq, lest the Iranians win.. I think the Reagan administration followed the proper policy since I preferred Saddam over the Iranian militants. So I don't disagree with attempts to prevent an Iraqi defeat. If anything, we had an interest in seeing the two governments bleed each other to the point where both of their economies were devastated.. But once that war was over, and Saddam started to look southward towards Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, then he obviously had gone too far and had to be stopped. USA has done a pretty good job in Iraq. Better than I'd hoped actually. Congratulations on a job well done. But fighting and winning is only half the situation. Until habeas corpus and private property protection and freedom of the individual are rampant, there's more to do. Thanks.. I'll pass your approval onto George W. the next time I stay at the Lincoln bedroom... ;0) And I completely agree with your views on private property in Iraq. I've finally received two of Hernando De Soto's books with relate to how to implement capitalism in undeveloped countries and will try to tear through them this week. They are "The Mystery of Capital" and "The Other Path". What I've read, thus far, is very interesting.. Hawk