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: stockman_scott who wrote (50265)	10/8/2002 7:45:37 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Pay special attention to the comments the Author makes below...I don't think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle and the other Bush Admin. WarHawks have been completely honest about all these issues...They have their own agenda and don't like grey areas or experts that might confuse Congress or the masses Well, scott, politicians who are actually trying to get something done usually go about it a little differently from policy wonks who have all day to speculate about worst-case scenarios. So what else is new? Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al. are pursuing this policy because they think the vital interests of the US require it. At the cold, hard, end of the day, that means they will pursue it even if Iraq does wind up in a mess, because the do-nothing alternative stands too good a chance of putting the interests of the US in a mess. It is not in our national interest to let Saddam Hussein become master of the Persian Gulf, nor to wait and see what interesting alliances he can cook up between himself and the Islamists. That doesn't mean that they want Iraq to wind up in a mess, or that they don't see they will need to invest political and military capital to keep it in order, but it's not their top priority. Besides, it is all total speculation at this point. The guys who actually have to give the orders will cross that bridge when they come to it, not before.