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: Oeconomicus who wrote (95281)	1/30/2005 7:49:26 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I am not responding anymore to these posts. I believe I documented that the U.S., particularly the CIA, played a long and serious role in Saddam's rise to power in Iraq, and indeed was his full partner until he invaded Kuwait. I am not really interested in talking about this with you anymore. I will add that the U.S. knew Saddam was a hit man and still supported him. The CIA has absolutely no scruples--it acts with U.S. interests, and is completely amoral. This argument you and some of your buddies use really amazes me. As a facetious but still serious example, a liberal will say green is the most popular color, and you will all say no, that is not true, and then the liberal will provide study after study that it is, some even from sources conservatives find reliable, and then the conservative will say, well, chartreuse green is not the most popular color, so I am right anyway!! That may not be the very best analogy, but really when you say the CIA had nothing at all to do with supporting Pol Pot, and then are proven wrong, and say, well, not at a particular time we weren't supporting Pol Pot, you know what? Big deal! You were wrong. We groom these beastly dictators and thugs and support their rise to power, and fund them, and get other people out of the way for them, and I just think it is a really sickening role the U.S. continually plays in international relations. We create them, and then later they go completely psycho on us. We are still responsible for enabling them to get to that point. I think we should really stop meddling like that, creating monsters. You are always qualifying things, refuting things based on your apparently more-learned-than-anyone-else opinion, but providing no documentation at all. It has finally just gotten tiresome. Perhaps we should talk about something else. As Ionesco suggested, how does your garden grow?