SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: H-Man who wrote (4682)3/22/2003 4:57:20 PM
From: Doren  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 8683
 
The point is that this war is not about terrorism, or dictators.

It's about energy, pure and simple.

My objections to the war were:

1) I don't like to be lied to
2) I was guessing that less lives would be lost waiting out Saddam, and it would be cheaper and better for the US to learn how to conserve energy. In the long run we would be better off if we are not so dependent on Oil. We would be a stronger country. That is just and educated guess based on how we waste energy and based on how badly our economy fares when oil prices rise. It is also based on how our colonial policies (expedient) have led to long term problems.

That said, I don't see huge problems occurring when we occupy Iraq other than the (hopefully temporary) hatred we are perpetuating. When we directly rule other countries we are usually pretty good at it. This is in contrast to the times we use proxy dictators to occupy other countries, they are usually brutal just as Saddam is. However proxy dictatorships are much cheaper than outright occupation. The question is when it is all said and done will it be worth it.

Depends on how you calculate it. If we would have been a little wiser in the past, the answer is no. If the alternative was doing nothing the answer is yes.

My contention has always been that we have short term (tactical) political policies based on current problems rather than long term policies.