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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (208348)	10/24/2004 11:34:22 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574547

Maybe it is. Or, maybe it's the error of not building Afghanistan up. Neither Japan nor Germany attacked us after we built them up. I think the moral of the story is: don't attack unless you intend to build the country back up. People that don't have hope unfortunately can do the most horrible things. Look at Saudi Arabia - so many of their people don't have hope so they spawn terrorists. Regards, Amy J

To: AK2004 who wrote (208348)	10/25/2004 12:38:05 AM
From: beach_bum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574547

AK2004, "Saddam Hussein 'Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti came to power in 1979. He invaded Kuwait in 1990 which is 11 years later so where this 20 years came from?" While this is technically true, Saddam was powerful way before that, although we may have started supported him later. From the link : news.bbc.co.uk the [baath] party returned to power in a coup in July 1968. Showing ruthless determination that was to become a hallmark of his leadership, Saddam Hussein gained a position on the ruling Revolutionary Command Council. For years he was the power behind the ailing figure of the president, Ahmed Hassan Bakr. In 1979, he achieved his ambition of becoming head of state. The new president started as he intended to go on - putting to death dozens of his rivals. "yep, that [supporting Mujahidin] is one of the biggest Carter's screw-ups" Yes, we can blame carter for that and Reagen to continue the support in 1980s. Are you willing to blame Reagen's administration for Supporting Saddam ? or would it be sacrilegious to say anything against the Republican Party ? From the link : commondreams.org It was just before Christmas 1983 that Donald Rumsfeld, then US presidential envoy to Iraq, slipped quietly into Baghdad to come face to face with the man who would become one of America's greatest enemies within two decades...... Even more, we sold arms to iran too - another Reagen legecy ? encarta.msn.com Iran was also willing to accept support from its former enemies. Since Iran’s military had been built under the rule of the pro-American shah, most of its equipment was of American origin. So while the new revolutionary government was hostile to both the United States and Israel, it needed American spare parts. Israel could supply some of these and chose to do so early in the war. Israel was anxious to undercut Iraq, a potential Arab adversary. Equally remarkable, the United States government opened a secret channel for selling arms to Iran in 1985, even as it urged other governments to stop all military sales to the country (see Iran-Contra Affair). American motives seemed designed partly to induce pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon to release Americans held captive there, and partly to improve relations with Iran. Profits from the arms sales were channeled to right-wing guerrillas in Nicaragua, known as contras, to supply arms for use against the leftist Nicaraguan regime. The exposure of the secret policy in 1986 greatly embarrassed the government of U.S. president Ronald Reagan. Do you still think the republican party has any legs to stand on moral high ground any more than anyone else ? Bum.