SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (5936)4/29/1999 3:46:00 AM
From: Stormweaver  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 17770
 
Yes all true. Muslims would have went ape-sh*t over U.S. occupation of Iraq. Also Saddam, petty little snot that he is, serves a purpose in the middle east as Yaccov so rightly said; keeping the Iranians at bay. Bonus points include that he allows the U.S. to keep a significant military presence there + they've got some live training grounds ;)



To: Neocon who wrote (5936)4/29/1999 3:50:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 17770
 
Impressive list (rump Kurdistan... what a great turn of phrase), and although I tend to agree with James' view that Saddam was left to be a bogeyman, I found myself grudgingly nodding to your assertions, but...

Why didn't we aid or even acknowledge the potential insurgents when we had the chance? That has never made sense to me.

-BLT