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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (163851)	3/11/2003 11:26:20 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574091

>I am sorry if this sounds insulting, but this is just about the lamest of the anti-war arguments. Maybe, but it's mine. >My initial opposition to war had to do with the fact that we don't have a causus belli, cause for war, that is easily identifiable, easy to grasp. I am all for taking out Saddam. Since we have already paid the price of going to war without causus belli, now there is no reason not to go for the strategic objective to take out Saddam (having paid the price). It's easy for me to grasp that the ending rule of a horribly oppressive dictator represents casus belli. >As far as this rebuilding nonsense, where did that come from? It has never really happened. Marshal Plan was about keeping the commies out of Western Europe, not as a consequence of the war. Are you saying that if there was no Marshal Plan, we should not have liberated Western Europe? I'm saying that if not for our occupation, Germany and Japan would not be the liberal democracies they are today. >In case of Iraq, it makes absolutely no sense to spend the US tax money on this "rebuilding" since Iraq is sitting on a huge bank account in form of oil. I never said or implied that our money needs to go towards the rebuilding. I just think that we should be the ones controlling the oil and making sure it goes to rebuild Iraq and not to fund the lavish lifestyles of warlords. >Just because the absolutely most ambitions outcome - functioning democracy - may not be easily achievable, there are number of possible outcomes that are far more desirable to the current situation. If we don't stay there after taking out Saddam, there will be a horribly bloody civil war. Almost guaranteed. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. >Suppose Iraq splits. What's so terrible about it? Despite the US protests, Soviet Union split, Yugoslavia split, some of the fragments are very successful, some less, but overall, splitting of those countries was a success. Czechoslovakia split too (without the official US opinion for or against). If it split, it wouldn't be without massive bloodshed. How many hundreds of thousands of people died in Yugoslavia? It might be worse in Iraq, because of the potential interference of Turkey, Iran, and Syria. What would be wrong with keeping our troops in there to keep Turkey, Iran, and Syria out, while keeping the ethnic groups separated? -Z

To: Joe NYC who wrote (163851)	3/11/2003 3:57:01 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574091

As far as this rebuilding nonsense, where did that come from? It has never really happened. Marshal Plan was about keeping the commies out of Western Europe, not as a consequence of the war. Are you saying that if there was no Marshal Plan, we should not have liberated Western Europe? That's the problem with those who support the war. Your focus is primarily the war and little esle. There is no net gain going thru all the expense of having a war and taking out Saddam if nothing positive happens afterwards. [Taking out Saddam is only positive to a certain group of people who have a morality/defense issue going on with this war]. The real positive is transforming Iraq into a better place for everyone. If we don't do it, withing ten years, there will be a new Saddam to take the place of the old one. ted