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: i-node who wrote (495821)	7/16/2009 7:45:07 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575781

And her response: what you do with Arabs is your business.... God, you can't be this dense. "... [she] took the straight American line, which is, we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries. Kuwait and Iraq were not friendly nations. They had been arguing over oil for years. In fact, Saddam did not get along with any of his neighbors. You would know that if you had a better understanding of the ME. That's standard. That's what you always say. You would not have said, 'Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed.' She wouldn't say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat." -- James Akins, US Amb to Saudi Arabia Apparently, Mr. Atkins was not a good ambassador...there were disputes over his implementation of policy.....what a surprise......not: "Akins was dismissed as Ambassador in 1975, "following policy disputes with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, according to Time magazine.[5]" "There were no mixed signals. It was a routine meeting. She didn't say anything extraordinary beyond what any professional diplomat would say without previous instructions from his government." -- Tariq Aziz (who was in the meeting) Clearly, he saw no reason to think the US opposed what Saddam was proposing. That's my takeaway on that comment. Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, writing in the New York Times on February 21, 2003, disagreed with the views of observers like Edward Mortimer: "In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest." Huh? Where is his evidence to support his theory? This is BS.....pure, unadulterated BS. In short, pretty much everyone who has commented on this subject agrees with me, not you. Yes, of course, he worked for the CIA at the time. He was hired under Reagan and worked for Bush I. What would you expect him to say? You have nothing.....period.