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: John Soileau who wrote (128683)	4/7/2004 11:40:26 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You're blaming the neocons for US inaction during the Rwanda genocide of 1994? Maybe you can do the math if you use your fingers - don't even need to use your toes. Bush I lost the presidential election to Clinton in 1992, so that means that ______ was President in 1994? Think hard, I know you can figure it out. Hint: he calls himself the "first black president". Which doesn't appear to translate into giving a rat's patootie when blacks are massacred.

To: John Soileau who wrote (128683)	4/8/2004 12:08:54 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sorry, Nadine, NOT at all "unique" No, Saddam was different, and I wasn't thinking merely of the body count. Saddam combined unlimited revenues, complete disregard for human life, grandiose fantasies exhibited in serial aggressions, a twelve-year uncompleted war with crumbling sanctions, all in a region of the world that we depend on for oil. That combo was unique. Seems rational that if you don't like nuke shopping, you should close the store (duh!). We did when we learned of it, which was after Libya cried uncle. A significant side-benefit of the Iraq campaign. Bush attacked a country that was not the goddam pusherman; in fact, Bush provided foreign aid for, and professed friendliness with, Pakistan, the actual nuke pusherman. Explain that We cannot attack Pakistan except at very high cost. They have nukes, remember? Moreover, Musharref is cooperative, so there are more profitable methods of approach. Do you think it would have been to our advantage to wait until sanctions on Iraq had crumbled and Saddam too had nukes?