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 : WORLD WAR III -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: robnhood who wrote (274)	3/14/1999 1:49:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 765

We "made nice" with Saddam Hussein because the immediate concern was the ascension of a revolutionary Shi'ite regime in Iran that loathed the Saudis, and might easily have engaged in a crusade to liberate the holy places, and incidentally control the bulk of the world's proven oil fields. As for saying nice things about Saddam: people say all sorts of things in diplomatic situations that they may later regret. Chamberlain said nice things about Hitler early on. Big deal. I doubt that anyone, in the context of a normal discussion, would have told you that he was a great guy. I certainly wouldn't have.

To: robnhood who wrote (274)	3/14/1999 3:33:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 765

More on the subject of Iraq, from another thread: The whole reason we supported the butcher in the first place was as a buffer for a zealous Shi'ite regime in Iran, that might have been motivated to start a jihad against the Saudi regime, towards which it is hostile, for the sake of control of Mecca and Medina, and, not so incidentally, the lion's share of the earth's proven oil reserves. The Iranians are less dangerous now, but not wholly tamed, and Assad still entertains hopes of a Greater Syria that would, if pursued, be seriously destabilizing. Plus, the Turks and Iranians are terrified of a Kurdish rump state, and might set upon the Kurds with renewed ferocity if they felt threatened. All of which is to say that you are right, even the elimination of Saddam Hussein may not result in a favorable outcome...

To: robnhood who wrote (274)	3/14/1999 12:00:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 765

rrman, Just what did the Iraqis receive from the US?? There was a certain amount of intelligence sharing on Iranian operations, but I certainly didn't see our boys going up against American equipment. Iraqi equipment was predominantly Soviet, French, and those fine S. African howitzers. Could you specifically identify exactly what aid you claim the US provided Saddam Hussein and what restrictions or "strings" were attached? You can't? I didn't think so. But it does beg the question as to why you aren't venting at the French for providing nuclear weapons technology to the Iraqis. Hmmm.... Again, Iraq is an example where there is more than enough blame to go around. Regards, Ron