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: tejek who wrote (351324)	9/22/2007 4:42:19 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573902

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. We've never objected to their foreign policy. To invading Kuwait, yes. To blockading the straits of Hormuz, yes. To going nuclear in defiance of treaties they've signed, yes. -------------------------------------- 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. The British had supported a partitian plan of their own and had dropped it due to Arab opposition. They even blockaded the entry of Jews seeking to escape Nazi-occupied Europe before and during WWII. The UN General Assy vote was 33 to 13 for partitian. 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. Without the ability to defend themselves, the Jews would have all been killed or driven out. The Arabs drove all the Jews out of the Palestinian territories they occupied. ---------------------------------------- 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. As I said, the govts of all but one Arab country sided with us during the Gulf war. You deny you adopt the most extremist anti-American position, yet you are proving my claim by accepting the view of Saddam that he had the right to annex Kuwait ... and I expect you'd agree with anything else he wanted too given your tendency to adopt the positions of America's worst enemies. ----------------------------------- 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. We've never blockaded Iran's oil shipments. Our reflagging of Kuwaiti tankers and the brief naval war with Iran was over keeping the straits open for all. Iran was trying to shut down Arab shipping at the time to weaken Iraq. The only thing you know about history is the US is at fault for everything. ---------------------------------- 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. We invaded Iraq because we feared their nuclear ambitions and abilities (you can read the case for the war in Ken Pollack's book, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq). ------------------------------------------- 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? BDS and Blame-America-Firstism aren't principles and values. You think Osama, al Qaida, and Ahmadinejad have valid greivances against the US and are merely defending against America's evil aggression. -------------------------------------- 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. Thought I'd restate that. Its a fact you can't accept. ----------------------------------- 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. Once again, you show your willingness to accept only the most extreme and anti-American viewpoints as legitimate. What I wrote about SA is correct. Yet according to you, Osama's the ultimate authority on Islam and if he says no foreign soldiers are allowed on Saudi soil, thats the view of all real Moslems.