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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (194490)	8/2/2006 10:02:30 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Hawk, you can lead a horse to water.........but some are just too stupid to drink....<g> Something else that's BS.. It was brought up in my conversation yesterday that Rumsfeld met with Saddam in 1983, when he was asked by Reagan to be a non-governmental envoy for the purpose of identifying whether Saddam was willing to change his behavior in such a way that the US could remove Iraq from the list of state-sponsors of terrorism. That would open up our ability to then support him militarily in the war against Iran. The visit was a failure, and did not lead to more favorable relations, although we did eventually provide some non-military agricultural credits to Saddam.. But the "lasting" perceptions of that meeting is somehow that we were allied with Saddam, or that he was "our boy in Baghdad"... Utterly ridiculous!! But here's the point... We see people like Thomas Friedman and others constantly advocating that we meet with the leaders of such regimes, and criticizing when US politicians are unwilling to do so... But when we do, we create a legacy for morons to later claim that we were supporting these regimes. Thus, maybe that's part of the reason that politicians are just so unwilling to meet with hostile regimes unless there is a clear sign that such a meeting will provided concrete results that lead to diffusing tensions. Hawk