Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RocketMan who wrote (130888)	10/24/2001 5:28:40 PM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

There is no way to prove this, but I have always felt that because the United States did exactly what it said it was going to do in Iraq, and because it was perfectly clear that we did not wish to occupy the area, the paranoia about the United States that had helped keep the Soviet Union together vanished. We went in, made military history, and got out (mostly). As I need not say, it's a lot more complex than that. The Soviet Union simply could not digest one more Moslem country, namely Afghanistan, and abandoned a pattern of encroachment and conquest that had been going on for centuries. Also, leaving Saddam in control meant leaving a threatening Moslem presence in the area and helped assure that the other oil-producing countries would keep supplying us. An effort to totally defeat and dominate Iraq, and reconstitute its government, might have roused the kind of feelings among other Islamic countries that we now see. The United States has every right to go after bin Laden, even if it should turn out that it was some other organization that actually supported the WTC attack, and I hope we can get him and get out of that part of the world as quickly as possible (except for continuing humanitarian aid, of course). I guess I have to hope that Powell and Cheney and Rumsfeld and others are getting enough intelligence to handle this with the right mix of force and diplomacy. I think Bush was good for one good speech, and that's about it.

To: RocketMan who wrote (130888)	10/24/2001 6:08:16 PM
From: Win-Lose-Draw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

a political framework that would provide for a reconstruction of a democratic, or at least a non-hostile state when we marched into Baghdad? I am curious about the never-ending fascination with establishing democratic regimes. I would have thought we had enough evidence by now - Africa, Asia & Central/South America - that democratic structures foisted on societies that aren't anywhere near ready for them is a sure recipe for disaster. This isn't aimed at you - you even added "non-hostile state" - it's just a general observation.