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: LindyBill who wrote (35499)	7/31/2002 1:59:26 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Going to war and doing nothing is a false dichotomy if there ever was one. I wasn't much impressed by the "rebuttal" to containment, but I've been in enough flame wars that I am relatively cautious about getting into a respond to every post mode. The local "war now" faction is not exactly a model of consistency. The incessant propaganda campaign since 9/11 to tie Bin Laden to every Middle East country the neocons want to remake in our image is , well, dishonest. For one small thing among many, Bin Laden is much more of a threat to the Saudi regime than an ally. And as near as I can tell, the CIA operation in Afghanistan is much more closely tied to the genesis of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda than Saddam Hussein and Iraq is. "The moral equivalent of the founding fathers", that's what the original Jihad in Afghanistan was, according to the presidential propaganda of that day. So with all the abundance of "moral clarity" among the neocons, leading to never ending broad brush condemnation of the Arab world, sufficiently severe to require war and occupation of undetermined breadth and duration, why aren't they advocating us going to war against the CIA? The current mopping up operation in Afghanistan, with the continual stream of blown up wedding parties and elder caravans is bad enough. Offhand, I'd say the most likely place for a fundamentalist takeover now is Pakistan. You think a war against Iraq is going to help there? You think a war on Iraq, regardless of whether Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 and Al Qaeda, is going to serve some larger purpose, and is worth the risk, well, that's fine. You want to engage in some James Watt-like division, where there's Real Americans who want War Now! versus Chamberlainesque appeasers, well, you're going to take some flack.

To: LindyBill who wrote (35499)	7/31/2002 9:21:52 PM
From: jcky	Respond to of 281500

LB, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am in favor of deterrence and containment against Saddam unless there is credible evidence to suggest he poses an imminent threat. If this evidence exists then I support overwhelming military force as the only sensible solution to his regime change. In the absence of proof, a policy of containment is the most cost-effective mean to implement security given the numerous burdens an occupation of Iraq would entail. An act of war to strip a sovereign nation of its right to exist is a very serious undertaking. Without clear support from the American public, our closest European allies, or many of our military professionals, this casts doubt on the validity of such an operation. I do not make any moral judgments on the president's decision to consider invasion. I am questioning the reasons. This is just my humble opinion.