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 : Formerly About Applied Materials
AMAT 254.72+0.9%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Fred Levine who wrote (70458)7/16/2003 10:50:54 AM
From: runes   of 70976
 
Fred <<...how do we get Saddam out without force.>>
...Obviuosly Saddam would not step down without some kind of coercion - either direct force or a very credible threat of force.

But that, by itself does not justify the use of force. As with most things in life, one must look beyond the benefits and also examine the cost. For instance - it would have been easy to rid the world of Saddam just by nuking Baghdad.
...In the current conflict there were two potential costs that I was not willing to risk -

(1) Damage to an already fragile US economy. IMO the war stopped last years recovery and forced the economy into an even deeper malaise. To the point that now even Greenspan is worrying about a deflationary spiral.
...And this is more than just a selfish consideration. Consider what the worldwide impact would be of a collapsing US economy.

(2) Support for a regime that is profiting politically from war. 9-11 was forced upon us and made Afghanistan necessary. And took Bush's popularity from ho-hum to Yeah! Baby!
...But Iraq was a choice. And it was pursued, in whole or in part, to maintain the momentum of Afghanistan It was a war fought for political reasons, not humanitarian ones.
...Or did it escape your attention that, shortly after Bahgdad fell, while Bush was riding high on a new surge of momentum, we started rattling sabers at Syria? And when GWB was finally steered away from Syria (a major asset in the war on terror) he started in on Iran?
...Fortunately the problem in Iraq which is not a quagmire has robbed the juggernaut of it's momentum - at least temporarily.

Yes, it looks like we are going to be able to avoid the worst of those costs. But it was a considerable risk we took.

Was there a better way? How about do nothing?
...Consider that sanctions do appear to have stunted Saddam's WMD ambitions. And that it certainly withered his ability to savage other nations. Containment is not justice but it certainly kept Saddam in his place.
...And the alternative (Bush's solution) may have made life in Iraq worse than under Saddam. No more state torture but now you have random acts of violence, looting, disease. And a power vacuum that could devolve Iraq into an African style civil war.

Which brings me to the philosophy quip of the day - "Primum non nocere" - First, do no harm. And here's to hoping that we pull it off.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News