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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (48344)	7/10/2013 12:08:04 PM
From: robert a belfer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

<Escorting tankers was in our interest. Also they where not Iraqi tankers. Not Iraqi owned, not Iraqi operated, not under an Iraqi flag, and not (or at least not mostly, its possible there is some exception that I don't know about) going to Iraq. They where Kuwaiti owned tankers (probably operating under flags of convenience before they where temporary re-flagged to be legally American tankers), not Iraqi tankers. Yes Kuwait provided support for Iraq, so indirectly that helped Iraq. And yes the operation brought the US into conflict with Iran, which caused the destruction of some Iranian military assets, but still its a stretch to call the US action an action to support Saddam.> I'll report, you decide. LOL Yes, Kuwaiti flagged tankers. Word on the deck planks was to help fund his war against Iran. At the time we had a really big hard on towards Iran because of our embarrassment re the embassy hostage and rescue embarrassment. I, and a lot of other sailors were ticked at being political pawns. It was Iraq that put two missiles into the USS Stark. I am split service, that is how ticked I was.