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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (20326)3/1/2002 12:23:35 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
John, do you mean to imply that an Iraq invasion will become a quagmire

Forgot you said that before, Nadine. I should have included something about that issue in my post.

No, I, of course, have no idea about the quagmire possibility. What I had in mind, rather, was the following. Frist, given the rapid communications of this period as opposed to the Vietnam era, discontent would mobilize, in organized forms, much more quickly. And, second, if the Bushies fail to be more persuasive in the public forums, then a lot of support will simply not be there, and not be there from the outset.

Again, I'm saying I think they are sufficiently arrogant and politically out of touch, at the moment, they might do it. But they will pay a price.

As for whether it's the right thing to do, which I take it is the point of your posts, I simply have misgivings. It's a weak position but I'm not persuaded Saddam is a sufficient threat to merit an invasion. As for all the tricky destabilizing moves short of an invasion, I'm a bit more open to the rightness of that, given Saddam's track record. But your obvious rejoinder, which is they are likely to be ineffective; I simply don't have a reply to that I would consider acceptable. So there I am.

John



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (20326)3/1/2002 9:11:06 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "John, do you mean to imply that an Iraq invasion will become a quagmire -- years of a stalemated war with 300+ dead American soldiers a week?"

US deaths in Vietnam were a heck of a lot less than "300+" per week. There may have been some weeks where the totals were like that, but not many.

-- Carl



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (20326)3/2/2002 7:09:42 AM
From: SirRealist  Respond to of 281500
 
I think there's more reason to be afraid of the peace after the war, not the war itself. <<

I think the thing I wonder about most is whether it's a good precedent to set.