Michael Baier

>> Also, the American people, tend to forget, that many weapons were given to
>> Saddam by the US-Government (Mr. Bush was vice-president then) during the
>> war against Iran.

> To which Ken Hirsch replied
 >The U.S. never gave or sold any weapons to Saddam.  The U.S. did give some
>intelligence help to Iraq when it looked like Iran might win.

Should we allow facts to get in the way of a debate?

>On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 07:46 AM, Chuck Ryan wrote:
>> with replies by Fred White

>> As far as world opinion goes the US cannot win no matter what action,
>> or
>> inaction, it takes in any situation.

>Our problem is that, generally, we keep helping the rich, for business
>reasons. We supported the Shah of Iran in spite of his murderous
>dictatorship (we needed the oil). The Iranians ultimately overthrew
>him, no thanks to us. No wonder they came to hate us.

And the current Iranian government dictatorhip is better that the Shah (no, I m not defending the Shah), one that enslaves an entire country according to the view of a select few. 

MMMMM, and the current govenment has not murdered anyone? 

Am I the only one who thinks that Fred dislikes more affluent individuals or business in general. As I recall, and I may be wrong, the US was going through major changes in the oil prices and everyone was screaming about the lack of the US government doing anything.

>> If a government is starving its own people and we send food, we are
>>propping
>> up a repressive government.
>>
> >If a government is starving its own people and we do not send food, we
>> are
>> heartless and greedy.

>We have done neither of the above to/for Cuba or Iraq. The suffering of
>the people in those countries has been compounded by US led sanctions
>(which you failed to refer to).

MMMMM, seems to me that neither country has actively requested US food aid, their govenments appear; at least to me, be the ones who have think they know all the answers for their people.

>> If a government is facing revolution and we assist it, we are propping
>> up a
>> repressive government.

>Like we did with Iran.

Again, the current Iranian government is not more repressive that the Shah. Is Iran better off now that under the Shah. Granted, any form of repressive government is not good, but which is worse.

>> If a government is facing revolution and we do not assist it, we are
>> heartless and greedy.

>Not in the eyes of the revolutionaries.

But the revolutionaries have their own agenda and thus their own set of eyes. Did the Iranian revolutionaries seek to remove the repressions of the Shah and replace with their own more extensive repression. 

> >If a government is facing revolution and we assist the
> >revolutionaries, we
> >are interfering in another nations internal affairs.

>If the government is repressive and if the revolutionaries solicit our
>help, it would be OK to help them even if it won't help us get oil.

Again the revoutionaries were totally right in their ideas and their own form of a repressive government, regardless of the influence of oil.

Unlike the talking heads on various news media programs, I don't pretent to know the answers. However, I do feel that based on history within the last 100 years has show that to take a head in the sand approach to Iraq is not a wise a idea. 
I m not advocating an armed conflict; however, Iraq has already proven time and time again over the last 10 years that they have no intentions of complying.  Do we wait until Iran had used a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon before the US does anything.

Yeah, and the same countries and individuals today who cry against the war mongering US; will be crying about "Why didn't US do something earlier".  


Viewpoints are mine own and they have value to me. 

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *