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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (66021)	8/29/2005 11:24:03 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

He did however attack the Kuwaitis and he did deserve to be driven out and toppled. Past US Presidents right until Clinton recognized that Saddam had a role to play in serving US' geopolitical interests in that region. In support of that interest, he was supported and pampered by the US. Even Rumsfeld knows that since he met with Saddam when he served during previous administrations. It was that pampering which led Saddam to assume that the US would not say or do anything if he made Kuwait "his 19th province". But he soon found that not to be true. Papa Bush recognized that Saddam should not be knocked out totally but that he be restricted to his borders and have him keep the warring Iraqi factions together within his borders. And the "no-fly" zone worked fine. Baby Bush and his cohorts of crooks and greedy oil executives changed the entire game and decided to move in and capture his oil wells. Recall how Bush had put in a lot of effort in planning to protect the Iraqi oil wells before ordering in the US military. IN the end that was what he called "mission Accomplished". When his military marched in and secured the oil wells. He had not planned anything else beyond that. And that is why we are in a quagmire today. Just my two cents outside of any party rhetoric.

To: American Spirit who wrote (66021)	8/30/2005 3:31:09 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

I think that if you recognize that Saddam deserved to be driven out and toppled, and you say in the same paragraph that his scuds were used for self-defense, you are in fact defending Saddam. Why kid us with this "no one is defending Saddam" trip? Re: "But remember, Saddam stupidly (I'd have said ruthlessly, and by his own choice - Dan B.) attacked Kuwait only after his people were told by the first Bush Administration that the US was neutral on the border oilfield controversy." I guess you see that this gave Saddam a license to take over Kuwait. Hard for me to see that, but maybe then, it's our fault. But too, "no one is defending Saddam," as I recall you believe so firmly. Re: "Strangely, it was the bases we left behind in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War which most triggered the rage of Osama and other Arab Islamists against us. They considered that occupying their holy land. So those bases indirectly caused 9-11." Osama's likes directly caused 911, as only religious nutcakes could. But I won't get you wrong and imagine anyone is defending Osama here! Heavens forbid! I wouldn't want to spread a false impression of you, certainly not knowingly, anyway. Dan B.