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.

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

To: Bilow who wrote (20395)	3/1/2002 10:00:23 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Iraq is one of the most secular regimes in the Middle East. If we knock it over, maybe then we'll eventually be left with a replacement that will be fundamentalist. At least with Afghanistan we were sure that the successor regime couldn't possibly be as much against us as the Taliban. Excellent point, Carl, and one of the reasons the Iraqi decision is more complicated than folk like Krauthaummer (sp) present it. K tends to argue in a way so as to impugn his opponents as being unpatriotic. John

To: Bilow who wrote (20395)	3/1/2002 10:14:59 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

<Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with the Islamic fundamentalists or Moslem madness, except that they are also enemies of the United States. Iraq appears to have had little to do with the WTC attack.> Well, perhaps. I imagine that it might occur to Saddam that he could persuade some fundamentalist ideologues to use his good offices and hardware to effect an attack on the USA. I consider his comment "Good job", or words to that effect, to be sufficient indication that he's all in favour of such arbitrary murder in the USA and therefore somebody to be defended against. Which in his case is best handled by attacking him. He is threatening Israel with destruction and has attacked Kuwait and Iran [even if at the behest of the USA - he could have said no thanks]. Maybe some theocrats might take over Iraq, but there's no guarantee of that. Anyway, it could be like the occupation of Japan. Do a real job and set them on the straight and narrow. Give them a constitution and maintain a few bases to help keep things stable in the region. I'd rather take my chances with that than leaving Saddam to go on [or Uday - how about that guy for a nightmare] and one day come up with some really surprising grand-scale mayhem. WTC hasn't even been tidied up yet. Saddam is smirking in his palaces while the bodies are still being identified. Mqurice

To: Bilow who wrote (20395)	3/1/2002 11:11:20 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Iraq is one of the most secular regimes in the Middle East. It was. But Saddam knows a strong movement when he sees it, and he has been wrapping himself in the green flag of Islam more and more in recent years. According to Iraqi defectors, he has also been willing to lend his services to terrorists and run training camps. And why not? it's been working great for Iran. Saddam sees himself as the born leader of the Arab world; he wants to get out in front of any successful movement. For that reason, he has also been supporting the suicide bombers' families in the Israeli/Pal conflict with publicity and money.