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: Ilaine who wrote (78314)	2/28/2003 9:29:29 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 281500

It appears to almost all rational viewers that the US has committed itself, irrevocably, to the use of force against Iraq in the not-too-distant future…. In point of objective fact, it is extremely unlikely that the US will stand by and wait before using these weapons. The tour of duty in an aircraft carrier is typically 6 months, although it can be extended if necessary. It is impossible to ask them to remain forever, or indefinitely. Yes, I realize this. I also suspect that the troops were deployed when they were precisely to forestall debate. As a result, we will have to go to war as a nation divided and at the head of a broken alliance, vastly reducing our international standing (I still don’t think many people here realize quite the extent of what we’re doing here). It’s all so unnecessary. We didn’t have to deploy when we did. We could have flooded Iraq with inspectors, and clamped down hard. That wouldn’t have forced Saddam to disarm, and it wouldn’t have forced him to step down. It would have forced him to freeze and hide any further development of weapons. It would have allowed us the space we need to convince the world that we are wielding our power responsibly, and that we hold war as the measure of last resort. It would have allowed us to fill in the pieces of the puzzle that we need to convince the free world – not everybody, but a responsible majority – that war is the only option. It would have allowed us to go to war, if we had to, at the head of a united alliance, which would have made it much more likely that Saddam would be forced out at the last minute by his own people. It would have allowed us to continue as the leader of the free world, a position that we are now at the point of renouncing. If that had made us wait another year or two, so what? I don’t think the urgency to put our people in the field had anything to do with Saddam. I think it had to do with domestic politics, with image projection, and a weak man’s fear that his weakness will be noticed, and the consequent obsession with a display of outward toughness. It’s very disappointing to me. We, as a nation and as a people, are bigger than this, and better. It’s sad. Potential not lived up to is always sad.