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 - No Political Rants -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (378)	3/8/2003 2:25:03 AM
From: didjuneau	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 504

In terms of WMD outcome, your specific questions seem rhetorical. Certainly it would be termed a failure if nothing was found. Any definition of success would be to find what has been suggested exists through various intelligence sources, and have a starting point to track down evidence of proliferation. Success to the Iraqi people would be an end to living in fear. Fear of war and Saddam would end concurrently, most likely. The showdown with the U.N. also is a means to an end that could be termed successful if what the U.S. has said can be proven. It would show that indeed there was no chance that disarming could be made without force. It would show again that the U.S. is more benign than feared in terms of military agenda - it is just trying to give meaning to the words that the UNSC had said over and over. There are as many ways to imagine a nightmare scenario happening through use of force as there are to imagine a nightmare scenario simply coming upon us from the blue. The "what ifs" really just cancel out. If they have the stuff to use now, then they just as easily could have used it later. Anthrax seems to be one of the most likely "what ifs", and its potential is readily seen by the example I gave. A person doesn't need to jump to the conclusion that I necessarily find a link to Iraq by the example I gave. The clearest way to see an end to this potential threat from Saddam is by a regime change, unless the U.N. simply wants to declare its own defeat and give up on its resolutions. Perhaps then Saddam could declare victory and live the rest of his life content to be a horrible oppressor of his own people. He might not even bother us... That would be another end, and seems to be what France is lobbying for. As a taxpayer helping to fund all this, it wouldn't bother me much either, as long as he did stay within his borders... But the U.S. is part of the U.N. also, and is right now the only driving force in keeping the effect of the resolution(s) moving in the right direction. The inspectors acknowledge that. It will be easy to judge this war. Maybe you could explain why you seem to think it needs yardsticks spelled out?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (378)	3/8/2003 10:25:39 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 504

sun Tzu. You said..." I am not forgetting anything...and if I do, feel free to add it in"..... ......" My point is, I don't care if you are for or against the war. If you think it is a good idea, you should be able to define parameters by which you can judge its benefits. If you think it is a bad idea, again you should be able to give a range of the negative outcomes that can come from it. That way we will have a way to judge this war."..... How about a necessary idea? You ask a lot of questions are you willing to answer a lot of questions?