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: Steeny who wrote (13396)	2/26/2003 6:19:36 PM
From: James Calladine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

US past history has shown a PREFERENCE for dealing with dictators rather than democracies. You can cut a deal with a dictator and he can make it stick. You are SUPER NAIVE to think that the present action has anything to do with establishing democracy. We have to go to war next month because Bush's ego wont allow him the flexibility to do anything else. He is a weak man who wants to appear strong. Namaste! Jim

To: Steeny who wrote (13396)	2/26/2003 6:21:47 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

I think a better way of promoting democracies is to improve the economic condition of people, and prove to them that America respects their culture. It's a thing called self-determination. The superpowers, America especially, have long used tinpot dictatorial regimes so as to strip the precious and valuable resources from the nations those dictators rule. Do a google.com search and type in the words: Dictator Trading Cards. Do you really think the following risks are worth it? a) What if Baghdad, a city of 5.5 million, becomes like Stalingrad where more people died in the defense of that city than the entirety of all Americans in World War II. b) What if we see a tinderbox reality where a nation or a rebellion group within a nation, completely away from the Middle East region, chooses to seize the opportunity to act: North Korea; Pakistan; Colombia, etc. And that some of these nations have nuclear capability. What if there are moves on Israel and it responds nuclear? c) What if Iran, fearing its next, decides to support Iraq; perhaps Syria also. I think we've factored for a war against Iraq only. So what happens if this changes in midstream? d) What if the consequence of America putting its military into Iraq enables OBL to markedly and determinedly increase his terrorist forces thereby creating more threats upon Americans? e) What happens if the citizens of Turkey revolt against their government? Or the citizens of Saudi Arabia? f) What if the enviornmental consequences become greater than any we have known in the modern age? g) What if our traditional allies, and our new allies, turn against us? Like if the European Union were to embrace Russia and this new entity becomes a competing force against the interests of America? h) What if Americans find they can no longer comfortably travel throughout the world, due to a new and determined hatred? i) What will be the effects upon education? Will America become isolated? Will students want to come to America and become educated? What will be the effects upon nations sharing research, both in science and health? j) You name it! Yes, Bush attempting to put a democracy into Iraq might work. But the tribal relations, the historical relationships, of Iraq's inhabitants might not be compatible. Heck, we've already put the Kurds under Turkish military occupation and the war hasn't even begun yet. I think Bush wants two things which have little to nothing to do with democracy: a) control of the oil--whether to put it in the market or hold it off the market; and, b) a strong military presence in the area by signing a very longterm agreement for establishing a military base with a very new, very vulnerable new Iraqi government. In short, this war is perhaps the most risky one ever undertaken, certainly in recent history.