SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Dan B. who wrote (68521)10/19/2005 5:04:50 PM
From: OrcastraiterRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 81568
 
It simply doesn't impact upon our considered decision to fight terrorism through democratizing Iraq.


So you admit that terror originating in Iraq was not the problem, but that democratizing Iraq is the solution. And how many innocent civilians have been killed to bring democracy to them?

The writer provides the LA Times note indicating that Iraq had other sources to purchase Helicoptors from, but fails to consider this when leaving the therefore false impression that Saddam couldn't have gassed Kurds without our allowed Helicoptor sale to them.

But he does point out that he couldn't have gassed them without the help of the west and the US supplying the chemicals and the equipment to make it happen. If you're going on a mission, do you take the Bell or the Soviet junk?

The author notes the Iran-Iraq war bloodiness and deathtoll, but fails to ask "would we prefer Iran would have won over Iraq?"

Well when you arm and advise both sides...it's pretty clear that you want both sides to lose...and do your bidding for you. Then when the killing is all done...you walk in and get the oil. By the way, during the Iraq-Iran war, the tankers kept on moving out of the Gulf, under the protection of US forces. Both countries have oil...and what better scenario can you think of if you're a neocon, then taking the oil out while the infighting goes on?

Orca