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.

Pastimes : Books, Movies, Food, Wine, and Whatever -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: coug who wrote (4328)	2/1/2003 12:32:40 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 51717

I agree with you about the "experts." I think the thinking in Washington, be it right or be it wrong, and who really knows, is that the suffering of the Iraqui people in the long run will be less if we liberate Iraq than if the world leaves the Baath party in power for another ten or fifteen or twenty years. Also, there may be a sense among some people that he was our mistake -- after all, we helped put him into power -- and it's our obligation to clean up after our mistakes. That's not articulated, but it may be an unarticulated motivation for some people. But mostly, I think there is a real sense that the Iraqui people will welcome a war of liberation just as the French welcomed us into Paris even though it took a lot of lives to liberate France. Not at all identical, I know, in that case we were at war already, but there may be a hope that we will in the end be seen as saviors and may ultimately cause less misery by acting than not acting. Again, I don't necessarily agree with that position. I really don't have enough facts and understanding of the situation on the ground and how bad it is for the average Iraqui and how they really feel about Saddam if they could say so freely. But I don't think it's an untenable position for someone to hold.