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: BigBull who wrote (84314)	3/20/2003 6:07:32 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Since I mentioned the other day that I supported the impending invasion, I was asked by one poster to express my thoughts in more detail on this issue. As moderator, I've felt it important to stay a little vague on my specific thinking on some issues but I think I'll be more explicit about the Iraq situation today because I do feel very strongly about it. Here is a slightly edited version of what I PM'ed to my colleague -- brief and not very well thought out, but sincere. --fl ============== Ooo, tough question. Now I have to express my fuzzy thinking in some non-embarrassing way. :o) I'm pleased that you would be interested in my opinion. For starters, I guess, I saw Saddam as a very dangerous guy in 90-91. I believed he was prepared to topple one government after another in the middle east in order to get a stranglehold on the world's oil supply. I also believe that in the modern world: oil = global economic capability = ability to prosper (or conversely, to fall into poverty, disease, and death) = life itself So, 'No Blood for Oil' is a stupid slogan in my estimation. The alternative is the global collapse of western civilization as we know it under the SH scenario above. I believe SH was preparing his assets to withstand heavy, even nuclear, attack. I believe, without question, that Saudi Arabia was next on the list after Kuwait. I believe the Arab world would have embraced him joyously, especially since my Palestinian co-workers have earnestly explained to me how the strong-man approach is 'The Arab Way' and how much they admired Saddam. I also think the Iraqi people , the most westernized/secularized (oddly because of Saddam to some extent) in the middle-east during the 80's, are very amenable to establishing an open democratic society. So, ultimately, I consider this to be serious unfinished business with a likelihood of important successes in the future IF HANDLED WITH SKILL -- there's the scary part... Oh, and I am very proud of the intense professionalism of our armed forces and I truly believe they can be trusted to effect this action in the most humane way possible so I'm not at all concerned about all that. And finally, I've been a proud American, and Democrat, all my life. I actually believe our society has invented a better way to live -- one in which anyone can join simply by embracing the principles. No heritage requirements are necessary. Call me naive, but there it is. So, I think we do have good to exhibit to the world but I am concerned that GW is squandering this wonderful legacy by his administration's bungling on the diplomatic front. This situation can repaired though and I hope our successes in Iraq will help convince many that we are still willing consider the interests of others in the long run. Best regards, --ken/fl