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: paul_philp who wrote (59236)	11/28/2002 12:26:29 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi paul_philp; Re: "... what is Bush thinking?" (1) He's not a real deep thinker. A lot of his advisers aren't that bright either. And not all his advisers thought it was a good idea. Look at this thread to get a fair idea of how pissed off the US is. You really can't expect pretty things to happen when a big even suddenly makes all the people in a country suddenly begin caring about foreign policy. Half the people in the US are below average in intelligence, LOL, and each of their votes counts just as much as Einstein's did. (2) Politicians always worry about immediate problems in preference to long term problems. This should not be a surprise to anyone who follows politics and international relations. (3) He's already noted that if Saddam truly did disarm, that in itself would constitute "regime change". His very own words: "However, if he were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations -- the conditions that I've described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand -- that in itself would signal the regime has changed." #reply-18140171 -- Carl P.S. I'm reminded of the story about the prisoner who convinced the king that he not be executed because he would teach a horse to talk. The king gives him two years. Why did he do it? "Well in two years, a lot of things can happen. The king could die. I could die. Or the horse might learn to talk." So if you ask Bush why he did it, he might, in a moment of indiscretion, put it this way: "Of course the inspectors aren't going to find anything, but it will take at least two years before they're willing to say they're done. [And thereby put themselves out of a cushy UN job, LOL.] During those two years, a lot of things could happen. Saddam's regime might fall on its own. I might not get reelected, so my reputation won't matter anyway. [Really, what would you have to do to get a bad reputation if you're the president who follows Bill Clinton? Accidentally nuke Canada?] Or who knows, maybe, just maybe, the US really could invade Iraq [LOL!!!]"

To: paul_philp who wrote (59236)	11/28/2002 1:27:26 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>how does Bush get the big win he needs to match the size of his bet?<< Maybe you haven't noticed, but Bush already has the big win. The US has new bases, troops, materiel, command posts, all over the region. Regardless of whether Saddam has WMD or not, he's pinned down and effectively defanged. We're interdicting more contraband coming into Iraq than ever before, because of the increased US presence. Any threat from Iran or any other hostile nation in the region is minimized, as well. And nobody but Saddam and Al Qaeda seems to be complaining about it. Will it be embarrassing if the inspectors can't find WMD in Iraq? Hey, I can live with embarrassment when the upside is peace.