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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gord Bolton who wrote (25711)	1/9/1999 4:31:00 AM
From: gmccon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 116761

How special, Gord. Now if you'll just start an anti-American thread somewhere else, we can take this lively, albeit pathetic little discussion off the gold thread. In the meantime, your pontificating about the morality of the US/Iraq situation has absolutely nothing to do with gold as an investment.

To: Gord Bolton who wrote (25711)	1/9/1999 5:46:00 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116761

What did we spend to shell Saddam this time? 300 million? 400 million? Not to mention what it costs to keep ready troops in the region... And they complain about Starr spending 40 million? <G> Jim

To: Gord Bolton who wrote (25711)	1/9/1999 11:11:00 AM
From: Giraffe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116761

>>Ron, don't get me wrong. I do not advocate terrorism of any kind and that is not what I am saying or suggesting. What I was referring to was trust and good faith. That is built up over a long period of time and can be destroyed in an instant. I'm sure that you might be aware that a Muslim Arab in Iraq might have a different perspective on many issues from yourself and myself for that matter. etc<< Thanks Gord, its about time someone provided a little balance and perspective on this issue. As despicable as Saddam is, its worth remembering that he is largely a creation of the American military/industry/media. It used to be Ghaddafi and the Ayatollah. Before that Castro and Ho Chi Minh. In a few years Saddam will be forgotten and we'll see a new straw man from some tiny third world country who must be blasted with bombs and rhetoric to keep the free world safe.

To: Gord Bolton who wrote (25711)	1/9/1999 1:02:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 116761

Off Topic: Gord, I hope you didn't misunderstand my previous post. In no way was I asserting that you supported "terrorism". I read your post with great interest, agreeing with the underlying theme of winning "trust and faith" and how it can be destroyed in an instant by irrational spur of the moment politics. However, I find it disturbing how you considered Iraq's action against Kuwait as a "reunion" of sovereignty. Saddam was bent on the pillage of Kuwait as "revenge" for their lack of continued financial support for rebuilding his military power after the Iran/Iraq war. It was a bank heist, cloaked under a Hitlerist "Sudetenland-style" aggression. I also take issue with your perspective US policy makers felt Saddam was a "great guy" during the I/I war. He was the lesser of two evils, a secularist dictator with a population base 1/3 as large as that of Iran. The Saudi's and Kuwaitis, as well as everyone else afraid of rising Shi'ite power in the region supported Saddam in his attack on Iran. That doesn't mean they didn't fear Saddam's rising power as well, and that was the primary reason none of Iraq's previous supporters were willing to replace Shi'ite hegemony for that of Baathist. Iraq could have had all the trimmings that went with its position as the possessor of the worlds's 2nd largest oil reserves. However, there is a self-styled Don Corleone Iraqi "mafioso" in charge of their gov't concerned only with his position as top dog. Nothing else matters to him except his continued reign of power. People suffer under dictatorships, whether US-backed, or supported by US rivals, of that there is no doubt. But to blame the misery of the Iraqi people on the US is analagous to blaming the US for fire-bombing Dresden and Tokyo in WWII. Those military actions were also of dubious military value since they targeted civilian locations. However, since at that time military planners realized that undercutting the support of Hitler's/Tojo's regime meant destroying the civilian support for those regimes, the killing of "innocent" civilians was justified. (good thing CNN wasn't around then.. :0) There is only one way that Saddam's powerbase will crumble. It will be when the population of that country realizes that the misery Saddam's continued leadership presence brings upon the country far outshadows the terror he instills through his internal security apparatus. It is not pleasant, and it is certainly controversial. However, attacking the US for the aggression and repression that exists in Iraq today seems to me, only a method of ignoring the root of the problem. That is Saddam Hussein and his extra-militarist aims against other countries and their people. Just my opinion as as the old saying goes, "opinions are like ****oles. Everyone's got one. Regards, Ron