Re: Who are you to "take it easy" on Samantha?

From: John Clark (
Date: Wed Oct 31 2001 - 11:20:06 MST

Samantha Atkins <> Wrote:

> The point is that it was not our country to meddle around in and
> we had no legitimate reason for such meddling.

Countries meddle with each other, always have always will. Deal with it.

>In some cases the democratically elected leader was pro-progress,
>pro-free trade and just left leaning enough to have a welfare state not
>much different than our own. Yet if the leader was to independent to
>play along with some of our interests he was still ousted,

Wow, those leaders were popular, kindly, intelligent, honest and
believed in all types of freedom even free trade. Politicians like that
are very rare in any country much less the hell holes we're talking about.
Can you name a few of these paragons of virtue that the CIA so cruelly

> The Saudi government is massively corrupt.

True but I don't see your point. Are you seriously suggesting this is the
one government where the CIA really should destabilize?

> Actually the Shah started getting too independent for our liking

True again.

> so we helped support the fundamentalist and other uprisings and
> protests against him.

BALONEY! There came a time when it was obvious that the Shah was dead meat
so there was no point in continuing to support him, but nobody at the CIA is stupid
enough to help fundamentalists come into power.

>Talk about a cowardly act.

Interesting how people use that word. When people were raining down insults
on the hijackers I agreed with them all except one, they were not cowards.

>Al-Jareeza happens to be the most independent and competent news
>source in the Mid East.

Yes, but that's not much of a compliment, it's like saying he's the Poet Laureate
of greeting cards.

             John K Clark

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT