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: Bilow who wrote (127225)	3/23/2004 5:25:04 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

US involvement with Saddam begins with the Iran-Iraq War. In the beginning the US was officially neutral, but later tilted towards Iraq, but that it didn't last. The CIA didn't ship barrels of nerve gas to Iraq, nor did ATCC ship weaponized anthrax to Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash or Rihab Taha. I recommend the National Security Archives at GWU for a non-hysterical look at the history of US involvement with Iraq - the actual documents, not the summary, which is partisan and not detached. I prefer history to speak for itself. gwu.edu

To: Bilow who wrote (127225)	3/23/2004 5:51:06 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, you may not think it's important, but I do, because I think Bush is a dangerous fundamentalist and a general disaster, and the distortion in Cobalt Blue's figures is being put to partisan use. "Let's Talk about the War," is the thread she founded at least partly to publicize those silly figures. Correcting it may appear partisan, too, I'll grant, but that can't be helped and makes the facts no less true; though I could use more abstract language, I guess. "Lining his pockets" would be an example of freighted, over-simple language. Another argument that's been going on here is about the relation of the torture chambers to our invasion of Iraq, or to the arguments presented to justify it beforehand. A micro consideration, too, but it all seems worth arguing about (I'm talking about in the pedestrian world where we have to choose between Bush and Kerry, of whom I'm a fan of neither, but I'm thinking about, for only one example, judicial appointments), because it's an obvious distortion of Bush's record being perpetrated for the purpose of manipulating the electorate. You needn't make the point that both sides manipulate the electorate to the best of their ability--I'm aware of that! There is nothing else in your lofty-perspective, philosophically framed post with which I take even the slightest exception. I assume you don't think that this is not also true of me: "I don't see the US as some virgin pure country, or as evil incarnate." Stipulating that all things are relative, I declare that I think we're the greatest country in the world, and that it is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the respect we give them, that makes us that. Arguments about presidential candidates and elections are of course tautologically partisan. This is funny: whitehouse.org

To: Bilow who wrote (127225)	3/23/2004 6:41:35 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Clinton bombed the bejesus out of parts of Yugoslavia and stuck US forces into several places in the world where they did not belong, particularly Somalia and Haiti. Bush 41 committed us to Somalia. Clinton took the hit and withdrew. Fresh from its triumph in Operation DESERT STORM, the administration of President George H. W. Bush felt it could not ignore the situation, despite the obvious risks of intervening in a country still at war with itself. army.mil Rascal @SoleMemberOfTheICaughtBilowClub.com

To: Bilow who wrote (127225)	3/23/2004 8:18:59 PM
From: skinowski	Respond to of 281500

Agree or disagree, but that was an interesting post. Carter was fairly innocent, but he was only in for one term and didn't really have a chance to stretch his legs. He did manage to fit in a few things... Failing to prevent a power vacuum in Iran - as he abandoned the Shah - gave the Ayatollah's the chance they wanted... and the rest is history. Abruptly dropping Somoza allowed Danny Ortega to capture power, and later led to years of bloodshed in Central America. Jimmy and his Sec'y Zbig B. managed to do their share.