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 (107696)	8/25/2005 6:39:07 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The fact that a country has a brutal dictator means nothing to the U.S. as long as our security interests are facilitated by the dictatorship. You can make the argument we did so during the Cold War and during WWII. In fact, we gave a vast quantity of arms and equipment to Stalin to assist the eastern front against the Nazis. It's much less true today. Are we supporting any brutal dictators right now? Saddam is of our own making, a former ally. It is not true that we made Saddam. Iraq was armed primarily by the Soviet Union, France, and China. We put Iraq on the State Departments list of terror supporting states not long after Saddam took power. For a short time in the 1980's when it looked like Iran (considered the greater danger at the time) might win the war with Iraq, we warmed up relations with Iraq. We even sold some helicopters to Iraq during this time. All in all, though, the material assistance given Iraq was pretty insignificant. I wonder why no one on the left accuses the US of making Stalin?