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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dr. Doktor who wrote (299196)	9/22/2002 11:28:49 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 769670

Why take out Saddam? Saddam Huessein ... ... has a proven track history of capricious brutality, on a scale that eclipses Slobo Milosovec by far (and you know what's being done to him right now). How is his behavior any different than any of the other dictators currently taking up space on the planet? In fact, we are allied with one of them right now......Musharraf of Pakistan. ... has established a control system in Iraq that is centralized in one man -- himself -- unlike any other nation in existence today .. where he, AND HE ALONE, has near-total control of extensive resources that can be leveraged to procure and produce the components and assembly of weapons of mass destruction. There is neither Congress, judiciary, nor press to act as a check and balance on his control. What control he is forced to delegate is maintained by a combination of corrupt reward and sadistic retribution directed at the small number of people he must depend upon. This was not a problem twelve years ago when we supported him in his war against Iran. What's changed? BTW the conditions you cite are SOP for dictatorships. ... is located in an area of the world where the freedom or restriction of the flow of the primary resource -- oil -- spells the difference between global prosperity and global economic depression ... and, were he able to exercise any measure of control over that flow, would give him significant leverage to impose some of his objectives on the whole world. You are suggesting he may attack his neighbors once again. If so, why during the past three months have his neighbors spoken against taking him out? ... is located in the above area, with an absence of militarily-powerful next-door neighbors to keep him honest, and with more than enough area to hide WMDs from the view of more-remote neighbors with the power to preemptively disrupt any aggressive movement or weapons transfer. Excuse me..........Israel is a major military power. Not only does it dominate the Middle East, it is one of the most powerful in the world. They have used our aid and assistance wisely. ... has a history of using deception and civilian shielding to hide his destructive capabilties from those who could interdict his actions. True, most totalitarian gov'ts use double talk and subterfuge. ... ascribes to, and seeks the admiration of those who ascribe to, a world view that has places a relatively low value on individual life in this world, while placing such a high value on life in the next world and adherence to its dogma that it makes heroes out of those who commit suicide for the faith, and enemies out of those who seek to coexist peacefully outside that faith. ... who in public statements, even after being defeated on the field of battle, has indicated no change in his attitude towards the value of indivdual lives and peaceful coexistence, but instead states his opposition to even peaceful, commercial activities between America and his neighbors. .... who knows that, in a direct confrontation using conventional military forces, he could neither count upon his resources nor his people to forestall his defeat. ... who also knows that he can further, and even achieve, many of his aims by an alternate path -- covertly developing WMDs for use by those whose committment to their common objectives is even more fanatical than his, but have no official tie to his government that could be used to hold him accountable for that use in the eyes of much of the world. Unlike China, Russia, or even North Korea or Iran, the combination of the above conditions makes an Iraq under the control of Sadaam Huessin a singular threat to freedom, commerce, and peace worldwide. Ironically, at present he is highly vulnerable to a military defeat by the United States if it chooses to do the world such a favor. However, the potential loss of life and liberty -- in both terrorist attacks he will have the opportunity to provision, and in the war that will ultimately defeat him -- increases, the longer we wait. I do not take this position lightly -- I have a son who is of draftable age, and a childhood friend of his who is already in the 82nd Airborne. But the cost of inaction could be far, far greater if we engage in the Pharasaical pursuit of the principle of "peace at any price, war never". The above provisions are all true in varying degree, and have been true in varying degree for some 20 years now. So why now do we have to go after Saddam when we are fighting one of the worst possible enemies.......fundamentalist ideologues who have no country but rather occupy the sewers of many countries. So why now when we are ill equipped to deal with the kind of covert operations that are needed to fight Al Qaeda.......when it is clear, what covert operations we do have are in shambles. We need to be focusing our attention on getting them up to snuff as well as the national economy. It needs to get moving again so that we can afford to fund all this military activity. So why now are we planning to attack another country when it only will lead to more nation building and when we can't afford the nation building already in progress in Afghanistan. So why now when many of our closest allies are opposed to the attack and will not support us....once again forcing us to bear the cost alone. So why now when containment has worked for ten years. So why now when Bush Sr. could have taken Saddam out ten years ago and chose not to.........what's changed? And finally while you mention concern that you have a son who could be drafted and while I don't have to worry, I do have friends that could go, neither one of us really believes it will come to that.......but what if it does. Things have a way of never going the way you plan. Besides, you never want to go up against an enemy who has the home court advantage.......look at Vietnam. Something to think about.