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: Hawkmoon who wrote (201385)	9/5/2006 5:59:04 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

And what IS your obsession with Grenada? Their dictator, Maurice Bishop, who took power in a coup in '79, was killed by some of hard-liner rivals and there was a perception that US citizens were at risk. The Head of State of Grenada, Queen Elizabeth II was rather annoyed about the invasion along with her PM, Maggie Thatcher. Yep.. and I think it was because he succumbed to pressure from the democrats, especially Tip O'Neill. More afraid of Tip O'Meill than Hezbollah? Reagan was so courageous that he went on vacation for the announcement that we were pulling out of Lebanon. Maybe Kennedy made him do that. Where was Clinton, maybe you can blame him? We invaded, killed a bunch of Cubans working to expand their airfield It's called a "sub-contract". When you're bored look up who the prime contractor was. Nothing to do with Pol Pot increasingly being supported by Mao, and the Vietnamese, increasingly supported by the USSR, fighting one another over control of Cambodia? en.wikipedia.org No, it all is the responsibility of the United States... You just don't get it. Look at all the thugs in history and the economic/social environment that preceeded them. You folks have picked up the notion that if things get bad enough the existing government will be overthrown. What you haven't figured out is that it either survives by getting more brutal or is overthrown by something that is more brutal. The exceptions are very rare. If you want a more brutal regime than the previous one, throw a region into war and you'll get one. They certainly should not be used as "pawns" to be bargained away in some Machiavellian chess game. If anything, that violates the values embodied within our constitution and creates far more "blowback". You mean like Reagan supporting the Afghan terrorists that were trying to overthrow the communist government of Afghanistan? Some CIA dude testified before Congress...We're willing to fight the Soviet Union to the last Afghan. He then laughed. We didn't really care what replaced the communist government of Afghanistan, just as long as it was overthrown. Then we got the Taliban. How lucky for us. And just to sweeten the pot, the Taliban still had the pamphlets Reagan produced teaching them of the glories of jihad. UBL was still using them when we invaded Afghanistan. They're probably still floating around. You seem to think there is this war on terrorism going on. The PKK has been declared by the US and the Iraqi government as terrorist organizations, but they are living quite happily in Northern Iraq; terrorizing in northern Iraq, Turkey and Iran. Up until very recently they had offices in Baghdad. The only reason they were closed was because Turkey and Iran were shelling PKK positions in northern Iraq and they were both threatening to send in military forces. They certainly should not be used as "pawns" to be bargained away in some Machiavellian chess game. What do you think we're doing with the warlords in Somalia? They are pawns. You can't possibly expect we're going to go into Somalia and rescue them. They are expendable, just like the South Vietnamese government was expendable, just like the Afghanis were expendable, you think we cared about the Chileans under Pinochet, or the Iranians under the Shah, or the Saudis under the Royal family. Condi doesn't complain about the public beheadings in Saudi Arabia, she complains about women not driving. We wouldn't want to offend the Saudi Royal family too much. jttmab

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (201385)	9/5/2006 6:05:24 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

A link on the Khmer Rouge from a lurker.... 2. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger discusses the Khmer Rouge regime with Thailand's Foreign Minister Chatichai, November 26, 1975 Kissinger: "You should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won't let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them." 3. Ford and Kissinger discuss Cambodia with Indonesia's President Suharto, Jakarta, December 5, 1975 4. Former US National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, on China and the Khmer Rouge, 1979: “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.” According to Brzezinski, the USA “winked, semi-publicly” at Chinese and Thai aid to the Khmer Rouge. yale.edu