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: carranza2 who wrote (77912)	2/26/2003 8:19:50 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It's quite unfortunate that Saddam is the issue which will define us for decades to come. It didn't have to be. Precisely because he is such bad news, we're on the right side of history on this one, and the French and others are on the wrong side. It's the way that we've gone about going after Saddam, not the going after him, that's been the problem, IMHO... tb@unforcederror.com

To: carranza2 who wrote (77912)	2/26/2003 9:26:26 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<<It's quite unfortunate that Saddam is the issue which will define us for decades to come. He is bad news. If unchecked, he'll be devastating to the West. >>> To accomplish anything in this complicated world requires intense concentration and dedication. Notice we are not fighting Iraq, we are fighting Saddam and nearly all efforts have been properly directed to make the world understand our position and the reasons. An even with this effort, the support of the UN is not yet realized . It is not that other problems are not important( N. Korea, Israel, Palestine, Iran), or perhaps even more important in the longer term, it is merely taking first things first.- one at a time, especially one where a resolution is swiftly accomplished. There can be no swift resolution of the Iraeli problems and even then would not require the use of our military. When the Iraq problem is solved , then we can reassemble our resources, move the Military back into their normal defensive areas or oceans, and concentrate on the next step for world peace. Get our think tanks back to computing how and what to do about it, and disengaged from Iraq operations. Align an entirely new Coalition (which seems to require a lot of talk) if needed to do whatever seems feasible. Hard to tell what that will be, may be hauling radioactive dirt off Iraeli cities, may be quenching a smallpox epidemic, may be quintupling our efforts against Al Queda if they attack another city In summary: The US needs to be flexible, leave our options open, in order to respond properly to whatever may happen Not get overly committed to what to do next before finishing up the last job and regrouping to be most effective. Regards Sig