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: KyrosL who wrote (136421)	6/13/2004 1:06:25 PM
From: Dennis O'Bell	Read Replies (2) of 281500

If we had spent one tenth of the resources we spent on the war (and none of the lives) tightening up the sanctions and shutting down the smuggling, Saddam would have collapsed within the decade. I've heard that one before - a certain Castro comes to mind. But he'll fall any day now.... I agree it would have been more cost effective to leave Saddam in power and sacrifice the Iraqi population to perpetual economic sanctions, the odd flyover, UN "inspections" and all the rest. What we've spent already would go a long way on that. So far, it's working in North Korea - or seems to be. But there's no oil there. Ultimately our dependence on oil is the root of all these problems, and terrorism is kind of a side issue. The odd terrorist sucker punch here and there in the civilized world won't end civilization (though it'll create a lousy legal climate and restrict all kinds of freedoms we take for granted.) But any really significant reduction to the flow of oil before alternative energy sources have been developed will bring the house down in short order. I'm unsure if terrorist attacks that could do this are feasible, some have been saying they are and it's just a matter of time.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next