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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (13920)	11/20/2004 9:48:09 AM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

With that sort of response its pretty obvious that you have spent no time following either a) history or b) economics. There are economic underpinnings in virtually every major conflict in history. Some quite good books are available on the subject - you might consider reading a few. As for the CIA involvement in overthrowing governments, over the years what was once speculation has, time after time, been backed up by facts borne out by the gradual declassification of White House and State Department documents. For you to even claim otherwise just underlies your ignorance of the subject. You probably didn't know that Kissinger was urging the Chilean dictators to speed up their program of atrocities against their people (because the US would one day have to denounce them -- "heads up bud, acclerate before we call you bad names"). You probably didn't know that Rumsfeld in 1983, personal envoy of Ronald Reagan to Saddam Husayn, was offering the "express and direct" support of the President of the United States to Saddam Husayn, in a chummy little meeting where Rumsfeld urged Saddam to build an oil pipeline (economics again) through Jordan (a country tolerant to the US). Rumsfeld had this nice little conversation - all thoroughly documented by those present at the meeting and telexed to the Department of State, and declassified originals available for the reading - and did not once mention how shocked and agast the US was that Saddam was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. Not once. In fact, other declassified documents show how the Department of State was planning on shipping materials to "nuclear related entitites" directly in Iraq, but wanted the furor over Chemical Weapons in Iraq to die down a bit (in early 1984) so that they could shove it through without Congress getting uppity about it. They were already shipping these items to "non nuclear related entitites" in Iraq, but the State Department knew full well that the materials would be transhipped to the "nuclear related entities" so they argued that it was simpler to ship directly to the end consumer. They knew full well what they were doing. You probably don't also know that the Department of Defense argued, and I paraphrase here "gas? who cares if Iraq is using gas? A dead Iranian by a bullet is just as dead as by gas." - again this conclusion - not opinion but fact - is available from declassified documents of the time. I literally could go on, and on, and on - but why bother? You clearly could not care less, or care enough to do your own research.