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: JohnM who wrote (41280)	8/31/2002 11:59:35 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

A bit too glib for me but this is one of my principle concerns. And I'm way back on the wmd issue, back with Buchanan, of all folk. Sort of, let's get clear the pragmatics of this thing before we drop in the manicheanism Well, I've already seem enough motive, means, opportunity and rap sheet to convince me. I hope the Bushies decide to make their case, and I bet they will. Absolute proof is not going to be found until after we go in, when I can safely predict it will be found in abundance. As for the 'day after the day after', this is a problem, but to be blunt, it will be more the Iraqis' problem than the Americans'. We may 'own it' in some sense as TF says, and it will be in everyones' interest to restore it to some better governance, but our first priority (not being Manichean at all) is to make sure that Saddam cannot slip a dirty bomb to some of his Salman Pak trained terrorists.

To: JohnM who wrote (41280)	9/1/2002 11:58:01 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Friedman: This is not a reason for not taking Saddam out. It is a reason for preparing the U.S. public for a potentially long, costly nation-building operation and for enlisting as many allies as possible to share the burden. There is no avoiding nation-building in Iraq. Because to get at Iraq's weapons of mass destruction we'll need to break the regime open, like a walnut, and then rebuild it. What's worrying about the Bushies is that they seem much more adept at breaking things than building things. To do nation-building you need to be something of a naïve optimist. I worry that the Bushies are way too cynical for nation-building. Me: Yes. One of the many things in the ongoing neocon propaganda offensive that drives me nuts is the glib "Democracy in Iraq" line, which would, of course, be nice, but when you try to pin people down on the (rather obvious) difficulties and uncertainties there, it's change the subject time. If they'd just go with LindyBill's "get those bastards", it'd all be a lot more believable. The whole "democracy in Iraq" line assumes nation building on a scale without any historical precedent I can think of. And the main proponents seem to have a suspicious overlap with people promulgating an "Arab mind" level of subtle and discerning "cultural analysis". It just doesn't fit together, unless you view it as propaganda. For cross reference purposes, the Michael Ignatieff article on the not exactly bang-up job of nation building going on in Afghanistan now, from the NYT magazine a month ago. I'm sure there's some neocon line or other about how Iraq will be much easier, though. Nation-Building Lite nytimes.com