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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (5400)	3/10/2003 9:13:03 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

Yes, I think this article is being quite fair on the side of caution. Saddam has provided the nails for his coffin by playing the sneaky obstructionist for the past 10 years in spite of the 1991 provisions and the disarmament directives. But that alone is probably not enough to bring his demise. Its like getting Al Capone on tax evasion when there was so much more that he was getting by with. I have my reasons for striking against the regime of Saddam while the fire is hot. You have heard them. Even my reasons alone are not justified against the kind of criticism you see about Bush. There are plenty of despots in the world that we aren't even talking about, let alone threatening to use force on them. I have seen all kinds of projects that are initiated on one motive and completed on entirely different ones, including corporate restructuring on a local basis. Whatever the original motives were the momentum is in fifth gear now and there are many complicating factors that suggest we should see it through to the end. The despotic Saddam reasons are reason enough for me. In addition to that, if we were to just walk away we leave our regional allies exposed and at the mercy of a "Victorious" Saddam. And I don't think he would hesitate for a second to declare our departure a major victory. Many treaties and international trade associations hang in the balance at this point. The French probably thought we would not want a vote at the UN but we are calling their bluff. If the vote goes they are out on a limb even if the vote goes against us. When we follow through with the regime change the French lose big time on outstanding debt collections from Saddam and future trade agreements with the new regime. Some of the French laundry may get aired in the process. Juxtapose this type of effect on all the stake holding countries and you start to get the picture. The feds spent billions to launch this operation but the money was spent in America. They will charge the Iraqis to pay the bill which is new money (billions) coming into the US economy. Or Bush could just back down and bring everybody home...The dynamics of the world theater change accordingly. It would be a definite wing clip to the US threat of force..anywhere. The next time there is a rising Tyrannist, do you think the threat of a superpower intervention would carry any weight? The issue and motives to follow through are way more complicated than whether or not Saddam poses an immediate threat. I am concerned about the aftermath and have some distrust of our own ability to handle that, but I still have a thumbs up for stage I (Saddam out).