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: michael97123 who wrote (149360)	10/27/2004 3:26:33 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) of 281500

But how can you say that saddams iraq was a "bulwark against terrorism?" I don't think GST's comment was off base at all. Whether we like Saddam or not he had control over the country and he was not overly sympathetic to any other country in the region. With Saddam in place there was little likelyhood of a merger of interests between say Iran and Iraq happening, which would have created some amount of momentum. The Bush / Wolfowitz doctorine (lets call it the Wolfowitz doctorine, Bush certainly did not invent it himself) is flawed in that it presumes that you can by force instill a democracy there. Iraq is not double-nuked Japan; Iraq is not totally surrounded Germany post a world war. The only similarity is that Iraq has been bombed to bits too and someone is going to make a lot of money rebuilding it... Iraq may yet have elections and they may yet elect a government which is far more friendly to Iran than Saddam would ever have been. And then what...

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next