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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2812)	2/20/2004 12:24:05 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Tim, do you think all the people complaining are partisan *ssholes? If so, then you are in for a rude awakening. I never called them assholes. I do think that most of the people complaining that Bush lied are highly partisan and where already against Bush. That's too easy. Americans now are only beginning to reflect what the world has thought about Bush for a long, long time. The man should have remained governor of TX. "The support from the US in 1980 wasn't very significant compared the scale of the war as a whole." What does that matter? G. Washington's lie was not that big but the tree was still down on the ground. The damage was done! What damage was done by our minimal support of Saddam in 1980 rather then waiting until Iraq was under more threat by Iran. The damage is the considerable amount of hate in the Islamic world directed at us. In any case the fact that we provided some support for Saddam is even more reason to take him down when he becomes a problem. If we were responsible for him in anyway then it would be our responsibility to deal with the problem. But really he was in power without US support and his military was mostly equipped with Soviet weapons, most of the rest where French and American weapons were not even the majority left over after the top two. The only points where a US decision could have been said to keep Saddam in power are 1 - During the Iran Iraq war if our support kept Iraq from being overrun, and 2 - After the 1st gulf war. But the first is rather dubious as our support was not great and in any case Saddam in power at the time was probably better then Iranian clerics in power of Iraq. And in the 2nd case we didn't keep him in power we just didn't invade to get rid of him. He's been a problem since the 1970s. The best behaved he's been is during the '90s and NOW you want to take him out. Go figure! I'm sorry...in my book, two wrongs do not make a right. Look at how our support of Stalin kicked us in the face after WW II. Overall I would still say that supporting Stalin was worth it. Even if we didn't send Stalin any supplies or weapons we would have been supporting him by fighting the Nazis and I don't think that it would have been a good idea to not fight the Nazis. Once we were in the fight it was better for us to help arm the Soviets and have them do a lot of the dieing for us, instead of having to have a lot more Americans die in WWII. With or without the Russians, we would have won the war with Germany. Supporting Stalin led to the annexation of half of Europe and a 40 year Cold War. I think we paid a steep price for our support. ted