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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (351310)	9/20/2007 11:55:22 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573901

Do you know that we forced through the UN the creation of Israel even after our ally, the Brits, told us it was a mistake? What do you think that did for the US image in Islam? First, we are under no obligation to give the Arab world a veto over our foreign policy. But you want a veto over their's. Second, we didn't force a reluctant UN to recognize partition. The entire Communist bloc supported it too. So? The overseer of the Palestinian Mandate, the Brits, said it would not work.....they would know. After all, they had managed the mandate for 30-40 years.........they don't have to spend their precious oil money on raising a military. Third, there was no real alternative except the driving our or killing of all Jews in Palestine. Its true there was fighting between the Zionists and the Arabs but it was hardly a foregone conclusion that the Zionists would be driven out fo Palestine. That's your opinion and has little to do with reality or history. Did you know when we sent troops to the Gulf in 1991, we did so in defense of Arab countries, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (sure it was in our interest, as it should be)? You answered your own statement. Do you think the Arabs see it any differently? The govts of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the emirates, Syria, and Egypt participated in the war with us. Only Mauritania sided with Saddam. So yes. But if you're determined to bend over backward to accept only anti-American positions as legitimate, you won't see it that way. You stated why we went over there......all I said was that the Arabs interpreted the US attack the same way you did. Obviously, that interpretation doesn't bother you but it bothered the Arabs a lot except for the Kuwaitis who are the least loved in the Arab world. Up above, you said you don't want the Arabs dictating US foreign policy but now you admit that we are dictating their foreign policy. So, dude, I am not bending over backwards to accept only an anti American position....its the same position you posted to me. Apparently, you can see that the American position had some flaws to it.....why would you expect the Arabs not to see it. Did you know we reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers and fought a brief naval war with Iran in the '80's to protect Arab shipping? We did it to help Saddam and try to get Iran to capitulate to him. No, we did it to keep the world economy running and to keep someone like the USSR from stepping in. Only a small part of the world's oil was coming from Iran. The US imposed an economic blockade on Iran for several reasons......one of which was to hasten their defeat at the hands of Saddam. Please don't try to rewrite the history books. Now we've overthrown a brutal dictator and given an Arab country a chance to rule itself democratically. That's what the hawks say but the reality is we have caused a country to fall into civil war......a chaotic civil war that has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people and created 2 million refugees. If the US had gone over with pure intentions, I would say that's too bad and I am really sorry but we did the best we could...however, you and I both know that Bush did not invade Iraq for the best of intentions. Having said that Brumar, unlike you, I can't sit here and make believe it didn't happen and say rah-rah-rah for the home team. Bush's behavior in Iraq goes against the principles and values that rule my life. Why should I amend those rules and principles because the president lives by a different set of rules and principles or a lack thereof? Huh? Why? We invaded another country for little good reason and violated its sovereignty. As a result, the country is in chaos. The country has an elected govt which is sovereign and wants us to help them. Accordingly, you're the one who disrespects Iraq's sovereignity. Now you're sounding idiotic. Let me know when you come back to your senses. The govt of SA is not dominated by secularists. Its one of the most fundamentalist of regimes. Yet they we were there with their approval. The gov't of SA doesn't do what works for the people or Islam....it does what's best for the House of Saud. Its not a secret that many Saudis do not want the US military presense on SA land but it works for the princes.