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.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: stockman_scott who wrote (69419)1/28/2003 5:23:38 AM
From: frankw1900  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
Regarding the war. There are unintended consequences in every action. The best they can do is plan for the worst but make sure they know what they're going to do if they have great success.

I've been very unhappy with the overt rationale for invading Iraq. I don't think the WMDs should have been the main argument. Instead it should be Hussein's tyranny and the necessity of fighting the anti-modernist forces that give terrorists and dictators comfort. Iraq stands out as the best place to make a start on that.

Everywhere a stalinist dictatorship is vulnerable it should be put down. If the main idea about attacking Iraq was promoted as regime change, then the after the war game plan would be much more emphasized. Especially if its WW3 that's being fought instead of a War Against Terror (whatever that might be).

The so called War on Terror is a stupid name and mis-represents whats going on. 9/11 was the first big attack of WW3. This is a war between modernity and those representing tyranny and unreason - some of the enemy are countries, and some others less formal international organizations. The Iraq regime is a part of them because of its size, location and overtly tyrannical nature of its regime.

Rolling up the terrorist organizations is necessary, but it's also necessary to attack the countries that help them. Iran looks like its going to impklode on its own. Pakistan may very well disolve into Talibanization and at some point it may be necessary to take out their nukes before they decide to ship them to Delhi, New York and Washington but there's no point in going that route until that country sinks so low - after all, it might not. Korea isn't such a big deal - they're so screwed up that they'll wind up selling theirs to the US. That leaves Iraq and Saudis. The latter are so backward that it's not very clear what can be done about them - all they've got is oil (which is fungible) and a bad attitude. Still, they might be subverted but a base is needed for that. And you're back to Iraq. The folk native to Saudis' oil producing area are a minority and persecuted, not Wahhabist by inclination and would certainly like to live in another country.... That's the lever against the royal family if you can find a fulcrum.

The Israeli-Palestinian mess can't be dealt with while Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria are using it as a proxy war against the US. They'll fight that one to the very last Palestinian and Israeli. So, again, where does the US start? Iraq, again, is the most vulnerable of the enemies that has to be dealt with directly.

................................................

It's OT but a dividend tax cut certainly will mean a great deal for the pension plans of ordinary citizens who aren't wealthy at all.

The Boomers are about to hit retirement and will need income.

I've been PO'ed for years that boards have been buying back stock instead of paying dividends. Market downturn and the money (my money!) is gone.... They got to waste it instead of me
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext