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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (94854)	1/26/2005 2:47:30 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

If it helps, I was speculating that Saddam was a CIA operative even before 1991. It was widely speculated about since he was such a cowboy among the Arab brotherhood of oil rich nations. I have already responded to you regarding that likelihood btw...

To: Grainne who wrote (94854)	1/26/2005 3:16:04 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Nothing new there. Saddam was involved in a 1959 assassination attempt and came back to Iraq when the Baathists took over (briefly) in 1963. I already told you that and more. Now, so what? Does his early career connection to the CIA, or even our support of him against Iran in the 1980s, mean we are not permitted to consider him an enemy, no matter what he does later? Nonsense. We were allied with Stalin's USSR during WWII. Does that mean we had no option but to stand by while he took over half of Europe and his successors sought to expand the Soviet sphere of influence worldwide? Nonsense. We installed Aristede in power in Haiti (perhaps more than once - I don't recall). He became a despot. We abandoned him and watched him fall. Should we have continued to support him in spite of his behavior just because we put him in power? Nonsense. What happened between the US gov't and Saddam in 1959, 1963 or the 1980s is a matter for the history books. GW Bush is not bound by policies of Eisenhour, Kennedy or Reagan administrations (or regimes, if we want to demonize them) toward Saddam Hussein. That he was once an ally (of sorts) is irrelevant for policy today. Situations change. The people fixated on this, I suspect, are only seeking justifications for their demonization of an American administration (which they tend to refer to as a "regime") and its foreign policy today. The argument comes down, essentially, to "we have no moral authority to even criticize Saddam, much less seek his political demise, because we're as bad as he is - look, we put him in power." Nonsense.