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.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ChanceIs who wrote (51476)4/5/2006 5:33:09 PM
From: Lizzie TudorRespond to of 306849
 
I'll bet most of the world would love to see Saddam reinstalled.... including many Iraqi citizens now that we can all see the alternative.



To: ChanceIs who wrote (51476)4/6/2006 10:12:39 AM
From: Joe S PackRespond to of 306849
 
Here is a nice little essay that summarizes the root cause of all the troubles in Middle east.

ksgnotes1.harvard.edu

-J6P


>>>Iran would never have made the culturally disastrous error of attempting to occupy an Arab country. We made one of our habitual bad bets on Saddam in the "get even" game.<<<

Please correct me if I am wrong:

1) The Ayatollah toppled the Shah,

2) Saddam saw the resulting confusion as an opportunity to attack,

3) He initially did quite well in the military campaigns - to our great pleasure, but

4) Iran sucked it up, turned the tide, and started to seriously kick his fanny. We were obligated to support the scumbag (Saddam) not because we wanted to punish Iran - we did - but because we couldn't tolerate Iran overrunning Iraq.

In general it is a mistake for us to interfere in any way in foreign countries. Gene Roddenbury (sp?) of Star Trek had it correct with the "Prime Directive." Did the mess start with us supporting the Shah?? With Saddam??? With Israel??? Who knows. They aren't our countries. Its fine to trade with them, but that is about it. Of course Pandora's Box is more than a little cracked open already.