Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (116280)	10/7/2003 1:12:47 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Is there any reason to believe Saddam was an imminent threat? No. Bush said he wanted to deal with the Iraq regime before it became an imminent threat. The problem was the very nature of the regime. With respect to this I always have differed with Bushites who pushed the WMD argument, not because I believed there were no WMDs, but because of the nature of the regime: it was incorrigible and as soon as the pressure was off it would be vigorously developing WMDs and threatening it's neighbours and a very large part of the world's (not just the US's) oil supplies. Also, I believe the very evil nature of the regime was in itself an excellent -probably the best- reason to invade. Is there any reason to believe he could not have been bribed to police the terrorist for us in exchange to minor concessions on our part? No. He was sitting on an ocean of oil which he was managing to get revenues from despite sanctions because both US's friends and enemies were buying oil from him. But, in any case, Hussein is profoundly untrustworthy as are the people who manned his regime. He would never stay bought. He would not police the terrorists but, instead, direct them for his own ends. Did we do this the best way? Was GW truthful to us in his reasoning for the urgent necessity of the war? Bush certainly believed what he said. The fact continuously avoided by many, and I fault the US government for not pushing this line vigorously enough, is that Gulf War 1 never ended. This was certainly Hussein's view. He never abided by any of the post war requirements except when they were rammed down his throat. Before you answer, keep in mind that as brutal and ruthless as Saddam was (is?) he was very logical in his policies (it is just that he had no conscience and no regards for human life). So I don't see why he could not have been bargained with. Without examining the "logic" of Hussein's behaviour -which is very debatable- I think it's pretty clear from his track record that bargaining with Hussein has always been a one way ticket to failure. He has only ever kept a bargain to the degree it was convenient to him. I should point out that your own words highlight the difficulty: "he had no conscience and no regards for human life". You can be quite sure that if some someone is utterly ruthless with respect to human life ("no conscience"), then it is likely (as in 99% likely) he will be utterly untrustworthy in nearly all other areas. (I call this the Ted Bundy rule).

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next