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: Michael Watkins who wrote (13934)	11/20/2004 9:42:17 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 20773

excellent post

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (13934)	11/20/2004 11:08:02 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20773

Michael, Thanks for your exceptional post. It is one of the best that I've read in a while and I heartily endorse everything you've stated as to the nature of U.S. foreign policy and the problems that the Bush team have brought onto themselves by the application of hubris and excessive force. *** One small item did catch my eye in passing. You state: Shaw of Iran (the US installed him in the first place . For an excellent overview of how the Shah came to be such a powerful executive in Iran, I highly recommend this historical treatment of the CIA's role in the overthrown of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in August, 1953: amazon.com As Kinzer describes the situation, the Pahlavis, i.e. the royal family, had been enthroned for many decades prior to the tumult of 1953. Their role had become largely ceremonial after WW II, with real political power in the hands of the Majlis (Parliament) with Mossadegh ensconsed as the most powerful minister in that body. What the U.S. did was to unleash a form of monarchism that hadn't been seen in Iran for a long time, but in doing so the U.S. did not install the monarch for the first time, but rather re-vivify the monarchy and then aid and abet its most malevolent and anti-democratic aspects. The Mossadegh affair is also mentioned in this very interesting interview regarding U.S. interventions across the globe: democracynow.org

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (13934)	11/21/2004 9:58:39 PM
From: Yogizuna	Respond to of 20773

>>> They are borderline fascists... <<< Perhaps you are being too kind here? <g> Excellent post.

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (13934)	11/23/2004 12:36:47 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Re: "Well you can maintain that but you are flat out wrong. I didn't just offer my own opinion (which is what you are doing) - I have the IAEA's (nuke inspectors) opinion, the US Department of Energy - the US's own nuclear weapons experts - opinion, and the CIA's opinion." Frankly, no. The facts acknowledged by all are in fact fully in line with my statement, which you quoted(me having in fact said nothing of Nuclear Weapons). In other words, I did state observed facts, not opinion, i.e. WMD's were known to exist in Iraq, and are currently still unaccounted for(though some bits have been found). The rest of your post is opinion as to what you think will be learned in the future. No comment necessary. Re: "there were not any beheadings before we jumped in there and we started shooting the place up." Oh No? At any rate, you are playing a game of chicken and egg here...and frankly with Al Quaeda there beheading folks now, I say what came first was 9/11/01, and Iraq is thus plainly a very good place to battle Al Qaeda. You speak further almost as though Aid workers not being able to go into a battle zone safely is some newly permanent condition we've created(of course, Al Qaaeda and Saddam's guys create the threat - again, this is not opinion, just attribution of acts to the doers). If it IS somewhat permanent for the near future, all will notice the Al Qaeda hands holding the axes. Oh, and I do believe overall, electricity, water, schooling, etc., works better now in Iraq than prior to the war, thank-you. Hey...don't give me anecdotes...look at the overall honestly, or be considered biased in this corner. Heck, looks like this "moderate forum" has been overrun by some extremists. Dan B.