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: jlallen who wrote (37501)	8/13/2002 9:47:30 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

IMO, there are a host of other reasons to topple Saddam with force if necessary if we are really serious about seeking out and destroying sources of terror...whether or not it is related to 9/11.... Two caveats. Makes a great deal of sense to me.

To: jlallen who wrote (37501)	8/13/2002 9:53:36 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Is it your feeling that Saddam must have been involved in 9/11 to warrant military action by the US to topple that regime? Nope. Personally, I consider him a major risk to regional stability. A risk that will only increase exponentially should he obtain a workable force of WMDs behind which he can shelter himself from direct attack. IMO, once he has such a capability, he'll once again seek to subvert neighboring governments under his control and influence. He would be a fool not to do so. Were I in his situation and possessing his demeanor, that's what I would do. As for Afghanistan, it will never be "buttoned" down until Karzai is able to bring the various warlords to some form of compromise and some semblance of economic rebuilding cna be achieved. The terrain is too mountainous, and Pakistan has little control over much of its western provinces. That could take years. The key is to neutralize Al-Qaeda's ability to use that nation as a major training base. Iraq, in my opinion, is a different situation. They have the economic means to readily rebuild their economy. They have a saleable natural resource, oil, and a willing consumer, the US. And the US has generally been "magnanimous in victory", leaving nations it has invaded in FAR better shape than before. As for exit strategies, it's evident that the more we speak about them, the more our foreign policy is undermined in the eyes of potential allies who will be left to "do the dishes". I'm not particularly inclined to put US troops into battle recklessly, having spent 14 years in the service myself. But there are some situations where I perceive and ounce of prevention prevents a pound of cure. And Iraq is one of those situations where I think we have a clear necessity and obligation to bring about a change. Sure we can play it safe and leave US forces engaged in a containment policy that is doomed to eventually lose local support. We can perpetuate the impression that many of these regimes are "hiding" behind US power, and that will increase Saddam's prestige. My opinion is that since we've already spent 12 years "containing" Iraq, we haven't seen an "exit strategy" effected from a war that was ambiguously concluded in 1991. So that argument doesn't hold much water either. It would be better to just "do the deed", and assume full responsibility for reshaping Iraq's political and economic structure into something that will present little threat to the US, and create a workable economic base for the common Iraqi family. The only alternative to this, would be to completely wean the US off of foreign energy and leave the problem of growing Islamic extremism for Europe to deal with. But into such a power void created by a US withdrawal, I can easily see China taking an active role since they need access to energy in order to grow their own economy. Hawk