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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (10261)	2/19/2003 10:40:14 AM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 25898

Fascist Pigs! Demonstrations over the weekend show the left's dedication to preserving murderous, dictatorial regimes--no matter what the cost. by Fred Barnes 02/17/2003 12:00:00 AM Fred Barnes, executive editor THERE WAS A TIME--the 1960s, 1970s--when the political left in America favored wars of national liberation in countries ruled by dictators, some of them fascist dictators. True, the left would have installed communist dictatorships in their place. But at least leftists targeted enemies who were corrupt, brutal abusers of human rights. Now the left has flipped. The effect of its crusade against war in Iraq would be the survival--indeed, the strengthening--of Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime. The left has brushed aside the pleas of Iraqi exiles, Kurds, and Shiite Muslims who are seeking liberation from Saddam's cruelty. Instead, leftists have targeted those who would aid the Iraqi dissidents, particularly the Bush administration. The corruption of the left has deepened in recent years. At no time was this more evident than last Saturday when large antiwar protests were staged in New York, San Francisco, and other cities in the United States and around the world, including London. Did the demonstrators march on the Iraqi consulate in New York to demand an end to Saddam's murderous practices? No. Did they spend time condemning him in their speeches and placards? Nope. Did they come to the defense of Saddam's victims? No. The left now gives fascist dictators a pass. Its enemy is the United States. No one has explained this better than British prime minister Tony Blair in a speech Saturday. If he took the antiwar demonstrators advice, Blair said, "there would be no war, but there would still be Saddam. Many of the people marching will say they hate Saddam. But the consequences of taking their advice is he stays in charge of Iraq, ruling the Iraqi people . . . There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chamber which, if he is left in power, will be left in being." In ignoring the 25 million Iraqis who suffer under Saddam's autocratic rule, the left has stripped any moral dimension from the antiwar cause. And its arguments for opposing a war of liberation in Iraq are either uninformed or merely stupid. Here are a few of those arguments: (1) War will mean thousands of civilian casualties. If there's anything Saddam has produced in his nearly 25 years of rule in Iraq, it's civilian casualties. He ordered the gassing of thousands of innocent Kurds. He had thousands of Shiites murdered. His war against Iran caused tens of thousands of civilian casualties, and his invasion of Kuwait was marked by the killing of thousands of Kuwaiti civilians. Saddam has personally ordered the execution of thousands of Iraqis. He has allowed thousands of Iraqi children to die from starvation or lack of medicine. Compare that with the few hundred civilians killed in Afghanistan by the U.S. military. In fact, the American intervention saved hundreds of thousands who would have starved to death otherwise. And in the 1991 Gulf War relatively few Iraqi civilians were killed. In truth, a war that deposes Saddam in Iraq will save civilian lives, thousands of them. (2) It's a war for Iraqi oil. There's an easy way to get all the oil in Iraq that President Bush or anyone else might desire--and it's not war. No, the easy way is to lift sanctions on Iraq and make a deal with Saddam. He's eager to sell the oil and make money. And the United States doesn't need Iraqi oil anyway, what with Russian oil production coming on line. At the moment, America's problem is the cutoff of oil from Venezuela. A war for oil would oust President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Of course there is no such war planned, nor is there one to cut the price of oil. The price favored by Bush and the domestic oil industry--and producers like Saudi Arabia--will be restored when Venezuela is pumping fully again, probably soon. (3) War in Iraq will stir a new wave of terrorism. We've heard this one before. The Gulf War, it was warned, would arouse the Arab street and subject Americans to a wave of attacks. That didn't happen. When the United States went into Afghanistan and, worse, bombed during Ramadan, it was supposed to prompt a worldwide uprising of Muslims, and Muslim terrorists in particular, against America. Again, that didn't happen. So when the Arab leader most hated by other Arab leaders--a leader who's far more secular than Muslim, is removed, it's highly unlikely to cause more terrorism. Most likely, the result will be less. (4) Give the inspectors more time. This was a common cry at Saturday's antiwar demonstrations. But of course those cries were entirely disingenuous. By definition, the "stop the war" protesters don't want war, no matter what the United Nations inspectors in Iraq happen upon. The demonstrators are playing Saddam's delaying game: Let the inspections continue until support in the United States for military action in Iraq dissolves and war is averted. Then Saddam survives. The inspections ploy is further proof the left has given up wars of national liberation against oppressive dictators and is now in the business of saving oppressive dictators from wars of national liberation. Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

To: PartyTime who wrote (10261)	2/19/2003 11:04:33 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

You assume we need to go into the cities....I don't. You do not give any consideration to the efforts our military uses to avoid civilian casualties......I do. You do not give enough consideration to the technology employed, e.g. guided munitions....I do... You do not give enough consideration to the efficacy of the battlefield prep. which is underway...I do..... You're speculation relative to large numbers of civilian causalites is just that...speculation....

To: PartyTime who wrote (10261)	2/19/2003 12:52:26 PM
From: BubbaFred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

An Optimist view and expectations: Iraq's secular Moslem society makes them pragmatists and will be much more supportive in the potential liberalization of the economy. The secularism is an overriding factor when facing a choice and actually presented with the opportunity to choose between a suppressive versus the freer enterprise system. For seculars the decision would be simple. The inner circle has started to crumble. The house arrest of the defense minister was a tell-tale sign of the instability. Another close associate of the inner circle disappeared while on a financial mission to Lebanon (Cannot find confirmation on this). The 200,000 to 300,000-strong armed forces only look big in number. They are mostly conscripted (drafted) and can be expected to make practical choice when the time comes. The rank-and-files are much more ready to abandon their units and switch side when the time comes to choose what’s better for their future. For sure they do not have jihad ideology in their mind. Instead, they have Black Label and Mercedes in mind, or the HumVees when they start seeing them a mile away. Iraq's 25 million population would greatly benefit from the oil revenue, even at $15/ barrel. That’s in addition to the economic benefits they can reap from the rich Tigris-Euphrates river valley. However, it will require a benevolent leader surrounded by uncorrupt natural resources and funds managers. The delays in starting the action have been worthwhile time of reflection. The Iraqis have time to evaluate the past and present, and anticipate the future. Being pragmatists as they are, I expect they will welcome the change, if only they can survive through the military action. The civilians’ biggest worry is whether they will live through the war. The oil revenue distributed to the population is less likely to end up in charities for religious schools and quedas groups. I expect there will be some defections on day 1 and massive defections by day 5. The road to Baghdad will be cleared in much the same way as what transpired in Afghanistan. There is 50-50 chance that defenders of Baghdad will surrender, particularly after they have seen the massive defections. The next five and subsequent years of a new Iraq is more difficult to envision because so many factors to consider and my unfamiliarity with them. Trust and faith must be given to pragmatism and secularism, for they are the seeds for a rational society and economic growth. Iraqi society possesses the fundamental requirements to create a modern society. They had it once before and they can recapture it again. GWBush will carry this success story to the 2004 re-election. In 2008 or thereafter, he may well be elected President of Iraq by popular vote, and be named Mullah or Ayatollah Bush.