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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (74562)	2/16/2003 1:14:04 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

When the Enemy Is a Liberator Someone here posted earlier that the two countries in the world where a majority of the inhabitants were in favor of us liberating Iraq were America and Iraq. It may be true! The NY Times reported this morning that the Anti-War Demonstrations World Wide were "Well Coordinated," and the thought that came to mind was "Who paid for it?" I don't doubt for a minute that the demonstrators believe in what they are doing, came of their own free will, and mean well. But you don't stage things like this without money. And you can bet that Saddam and a lot of the other Arabs would have loved to give plenty. It's fungible and untraceable. To think otherwise is naive.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (74562)	2/22/2003 10:24:30 AM
From: Condor	Respond to of 281500

When the Enemy Is a Liberator By JOHN F. BURNS NYT Good article, thanks. The following bolded is the thing about the war that concerns me the most. If there are heavy civilian casualties then I'm afraid this thing will backfire big time on the US. As always, that is why I would have preferred a regime change engineered other than by direct and massive military attack. I feel that the US given its resources, reach and talent could have successfully undertaken the option. If a fraction of the effort and cost that was going into hosting a war was put into the alternative I felt it would be successful. As I see it the advantage would have been quiet acceptance by ALL global parties. Obviously, most here disagree and war it is. snippets....... "No, no, no!" one man said excitedly, and he seemed to speak for all. Iraqis, they said, wanted their freedom, and wanted it now. The message for Mr. Bush, they said, was that he should press ahead with war, but on conditions that spared ordinary Iraqis. ....... This America, in the migrants' telling, has enabled the humiliation of Palestinians by arming Israel; craves control of Iraq's oil fields; supported Mr. Hussein in the 1980's and cared not a fig for his brutality then, and grieved for seven lost astronauts even as its forces prepared to use "smart" weapons that, the migrants said, threatened to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis. ....... The leaders of these nations, all monarchies, know that if an American war bogged down, with heavy casualties on both sides, their own legitimacy, never strong, would be challenged by their own people in ways they might not survive. For these rulers, it is crucial that any conflict be short and inflict minimal casualties on Iraq's civilians. C