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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (134330)	5/25/2004 3:53:34 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Or maybe he deeply believes in the cause of freedom for Iraq and the removal of human rights abuses there by Saddam's torture cells, and is willing to sacrifice his political future for the effort.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (134330)	5/25/2004 11:35:11 PM
From: toddy	Respond to of 281500

Jacob; thank you for the time and effort in replying. i have another take: 1. yes, don't think Blair support for any personal gain or anything sleazy to do with oil. 2. England is the one western power that should understand that region is a deathtrap for foreign occupying power. this is no passive India or China. the then Great Britian was responsible in carving out the current Iraq from the crumbling Ottoman empire. 3.whatever deal blair makes with bush in earlier stage of war, he is not getting much out of bush. why Blair dig himself deeper with his unwavering support? it is only past week that Blair ' delayed ' deploying more troops in midst of Abu Ghraib scandal. 4. i don't believe support was payback for Falkland war. beyond treaty obligations, no new administration oblige to carry any predecessor promises. 5. Blair is head of Labor party. different values and beliefs from GOP. what's common with Bush ? guess i have to wait for Blair's memoirs to find out. toddy ;o)