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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (27238)	12/23/1998 11:58:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Bob, The whole war was used by Bush to strengthen his darling New World Order (he's up to his neck in it) and increase the UN influence in American foriegn policy and UN control over our armed forces. Do you really think it such an awful thing that the US has recently been consulting (to some degree) with the world community before deploying military forces? Do you have any idea how much damage the unilateral use of force in the past has done to our reputation and standing in other countries? The ambassador was told to shut up after wards when she realized she had been used and the reports lost or something. Ah yes, those old lost reports. How very convenient for conspiracy theorists. Iraq claims a certain portion of land that Kuwait controls which is full of oil wells. It used to belong to Iraq at some time in the past. So what if it belonged to Iraq in the past? It is very clear that the people who live in what is now Kuwait do not want to be Iraqis, and according to the principle of self-determination they have the right not to be Iraqis if they so choose. What if Britain were to invade the US on the grounds that it had once been part of the British Empire? Or Italy could invade France and England, among others, to reconstitute the Roman Empire. The "it used to be ours" excuse doesn't make it any more. Paranoia really does strike deep. Steve

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (27238)	12/24/1998 10:36:00 PM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

<Saddam was set up by the US and Bush, that's why. He would not have invaded Kuwait except he thought he got the nod from Bush that we didn't care. Up to that point Saddam was our bud. The US ambassador was given instructions not to strongly warn Saddam against invading Kuwait (we knew his plans beforehand) which was considered tacit approval even by our own ambassador. Then Bush double crossed him. The ambassador was told to shut up after wards when she realized she had been used and the reports lost or something. Iraq claims a certain portion of land that Kuwait controls which is full of oil wells. It used to belong to Iraq at some time in the past.> Bob, you are right about this as far as I can remember. I read pretty much exactly the same thing. American news programs are just dreadful--it would be impossible to get much of anything that is factual or objective or even serious and detailed from them. The BBC World News, for example, is very much better. However, I do not agree with your further analysis that American foreign policy is much influenced by the UN, or that the UN controls our armed forces, and I am pretty sure that if they heard you saying that up there at headquarters, they would be laughing in the aisles, while crying at the same time. Not only are we seriously arrears on our UN dues, paying the bare minimum whenever we are about to lose our voting rights, but the UN was trampled over the last Iraqi squirmish, with Kofi Anan stating that it was a sad day in the history of the UN. I am sure we would like to hide behind the UN's international skirts, to to speak, when we do our international dirty work, but it doesn't ever seem that we are able to conceal ourselves that well. The UN has particularly lost any clout or respect it had with our elected officials.