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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (67724)	2/11/2003 3:02:53 PM
From: runes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Sun Tzu <<But how do you assess the consequences of the associated inaction?>> ...The same concerns apply to non-interference as well And again the problem is that you can never accurately predict the consequences. Leaving the Russian based government intact has brought us to where we are now. Opposing it might have gotten us drawn into Afghanistan in a way that would have prompted the Russians to re-invade. Or maybe not - we will never know. ...It is a messy business with no optimal solutions and loads of unintended consequences. No matter which way you turn. The only positive note I can give is that Afghanistan has now progressed from occupation to chaotic freedom to stability under harsh control and now to stability with freedom. Hopefully this time it will endure - but that is not guaranteed. And yes -hopefully this time we will stick around long enough for it to take root in the hearts of the people. <<Assume we have just invaded Iraq and removed Saddam>> Now what. ...Again - so many variables, so many assumptions. Anything could happen. It could be that the Iraqis take up the mantle of democracy with a zeal born from oppression. Or it could be that the country rips apart into a three tier civil war with the US as a a favorite target for all sides. So much depends on how we succeed in kicking out Sadam. ...My best guess is that we will go in without a UN blessing. And that Sadam will go scorched earth - oil infrastructure destroyed, massive civillian casualties, large parts of major cities contaminated with chemical and biological agents. At that point it will be a world calamity with the US as the major villain (You attack because of WMD, you bomb guns in civilian populations and then you are surprised that the WMD contents are dispersed in the cities - "What were you thinking?". What - you didn't put the bad stuff there (theres your "we didn't do it" morality again). ...The end result is that the world will step in to push the US out of the way. Bush will resist it but the pressure - worldwide and internally will be too great. The door will be open for Al Qaida to punish us with the same WMD that we unleashed on the innocent Iraqi people. ...10 years down the road the US will still be spending large amounts of money to be "secure". Iraq will re-emerge as a more stabile and prosperous government with strong ties to Arab governments and Europe but not the US. ...Should I go back into my lecture about self defeating beliefs with emphsis on George - I reinvented myself to be a person of strong moral values - Bush? Or should I stop and point out that the Saudi plan might take hold - that the Iraqi command may chose their self interest in survival over the threat of Sadam and overthrow him? A real possibility. ...Its all a matter of possibilities and probabilities with no guarantee of the outcome. And to a degree Bush's approach does make sense - he is forcing the issue which may cause an upheaval before the storm. But it is a very high stakes gamble that leaves me very uncomfortable. ...For myself - I can't help but believe - like the French et. al. that we have not fully explored the possibilities and that there may yet be a less dangerous way to bring about change.