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 (39569)	8/23/2002 5:28:38 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Re: Iraq by the Economist. economist.com This part grabbed me: None of these Republicans—and few of America’s allies—would quibble with the Bush administration’s assertion that Mr Hussein is evil. Most would also accept that he is a danger to his people, the region and, ultimately, America, and is, on the balance of evidence, maintaining and developing an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s latest offer to resume talks on readmitting UN weapons inspectors, last Friday, again fell far short of the unconditional acceptance of unfettered, intrusive inspection that the UN Security Council has long demanded. There is widespread agreement that getting rid of Mr Hussein would be a good thing. What the administration has yet to show the doubters, however, is, in Mr Eagleburger’s words, “why we have to do it now, when all our allies are opposed to it.” If it is the case that "most" would agree he is a danger and bent on building WMD, the question SHOULD NOT be "why attack now?" The question should be "why are you all opposed now?" Need we wait for the inevitable? Derek

To: LindyBill who wrote (39569)	8/23/2002 11:31:37 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

It strikes me that out of real intellectual humility, Mr. Bush has "drifted" into the boldest, most counter-intuitive of all the possible courses of action: a project to re-align the United States explicitly with every opposition force that can be found within the Middle East, no matter how small, that aspires to democratic constitutional reform; and to gradually manoeuvring the full power of the U.S. behind them. I agree with this assessment. However, I don't expect much to come of this, unfortunately. Pakistan, for example, has been trying to become a democracy for approximately 50 years, and seems further away now than ever before. When Carter withdrew support for the Shah of Iran, optimists thought that the revolution would install a democracy, not a theocracy. I do have higher hopes for Iraq because it has been a secular society under Saddam for a long time.