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 : SUPPORT OUR TROOPS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (935)	3/23/2003 11:11:52 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 3592

Right.

To: sandintoes who wrote (935)	3/24/2003 1:38:26 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3592

PEGGY NOONAN Eyes on the Prize Iraq's liberation will be the biggest good thing to happen since 9/11. URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110003239 Monday, March 24, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST So far so good. The war has begun, and the world hasn't ended (alarmists, pessimists and prophets on left and right please note). Saddam Hussein may be hurt or dead. And so, on to Baghdad. An old song from the American civil rights is on my mind and seems on point. It's about how far the movement had come and would go as long as all involved remained focused, in spite of setbacks, on the new day that was coming. "Keep your eyes on the prize, oh Lord, oh Lord," went the refrain. That's what the coming week is about. As we become, inevitably, bogged down and fogged down by the dailyness and messiness of war, we should keep our eyes on the prize. One senses it is going to be bigger than we think. We are about to startle and reorder the world. We are going to win this thing, and in the winning of it we are going to reinspire civilized people across the globe. We're going to give the world a lift. This is what the American victory in Iraq is going to mean: It is going to mean, first, that something good happened. This sounds small but is huge. The West has been depressed since Sept. 11, 2001. It has been torn, riven. It has been a difficult time. The coming victory is going to be the biggest good thing that has happened in the world, the West and the United States since the twin towers fell. The deeper meaning there is that we are witnessing a triumph of activism over fatalism. Victory will remind the world that faith and effort trump ennui and despair. It will demonstrate to the civilized world that the good do not have to see themselves as at the inevitable mercy of barbarians. It will demonstrate that we are not part of a long and unstoppable slide, that we can move forward and win progress, that we don't have to cower in blue suits behind the Security Council desk. We can straighten up, join together and make things better. An American victory is going to remind the world, too, that while many have tended to see terror states and terror groups as talented, disciplined and competent, they are not, always. The reigning Iraqi claque has been revealed, or so it seems, to be what many of us hoped it was: a house of cards. It is not bad for the world to see it collapse. Another thing, and a crucially important one. The United States is showing to the world, to its friends and foes, that it will pay a high price to make the world better. We will put it all on the line. This country is, still, the place that will take responsibility when no one else will. In this our entire country is like the firemen of 9/11 who looked up, saw the burning towers and charged. In the past few days, weeks and months, America charged. It has a lot to be proud of. (Being America it will soon be beating itself up again, but it should take some time over the next few weeks to feel the healthy pride it's earned.) The American president has, meanwhile, demonstrated to the entire world that he is neither a bombastic naïf nor a reckless cowboy but, in fact, another kind of American stereotype: the steely-eyed rocket man. Don't tread on him. It is good for the world that it see him as he is. As for leadership style, remember Jimmy Carter micromanaging the failed hostage rescue mission in 1980? This president was told Wednesday night we may have to move early to take advantage of potentially key targets that had presented themselves. Bush said, "Let's go." It takes guts and judgment to trust others who know how to do their jobs. The American victory will mean that the United States has removed a great and serious threat to the innocent people of the world. An evil man who was gathering to himself weapons of mass destruction was, is, a danger to the world. And so, with the successful prosecution of the war, the world will be safer. We will have helped the Mideast become more stable. There were those who warned that invading Iraq would lead to instability in the Mideast, to which the only response was: lead to? The Mideast was instable. Saddam was part of that instability. His removal opens up the possibility of stability. With Iraq taken care of the United States will be able to move with enhanced strength toward an Arab-Israeli peace that might last. There are those who say Mr. Bush cannot move forcefully here because his base is composed in part of Christian Evangelicals deeply enamored of Israel. And so it is. But with victory in Baghdad Mr. Bush's base widens, and it will damage him not at all either in the world or domestically to come out strong and do what needs to be done. And, finally, victory in Iraq means this: every terror state and terror group is more than ever on notice and newly aware that the West does not exist to play victim. A victory in Iraq is about to enhance America's stature in the world. America deserves it. Because of all the powerful countries in the world, it is the most trustworthy, reliable and constructive. Soon this war will be over. It was hard getting there, hard doing it and there will no doubt be hard going. But it will be over, and we won't come back from hell with empty hands. We will have won a great deal. In the next week and weeks it will be good to keep that in mind, and keep our eyes on the prize. We have 2.7 million members of the active and reserve American armed forces today. The world owes a great deal to America, and America owes a great deal to them, and not only because of their courage but because of their faith in us. And they have faith in us, and in this place we all live in, this great country, or else they would never risk their lives for us. Which leaves us humbled, and wishing we could say to them what the world should be saying to the country they represent: Thank you. Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal. Her most recent book, "When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan," is published by Viking Penguin. You can buy it from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Mondays.

To: sandintoes who wrote (935)	3/24/2003 1:42:22 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3592

March 24, 2003 URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030324-11657266.htm Why Iraq? Consider the causes Jay Ambrose Look, say some of the critics of this war in Iraq, other countries possess weapons of mass destruction, other regimes have committed genocide, other countries harbor terrorists, and so why is it the United States is going after Saddam Hussein? Mightn't it be the case, some further ask in tones suggesting a psychological insight denied most mortals, that this is a personal matter with George W. Bush because Saddam tried to have his father assassinated? Excuse the exasperation, but such questions betray an obstinate obtuseness. The simplest reply: It's the combination, stupid. What makes Iraq a singularly important target in the war against terrorism is that it is run by a genocidal maniac with links to terrorists, that this vile dictator is hostile to the United States, that his regime is viciously oppressive, that he has a record of invading neighboring countries, that he has devoted endless energy to developing weapons of mass destruction — and that he can be expeditiously defeated. Some African nations have been equally or more genocidal, some of the critics point out. But what these nations don't have are weapons of mass murder. Saddam's genocidal history tells us something hugely important, namely that he would not have a moment's moral hesitation in employing those weapons. The African nations may deserve U.S. attention, but they are no particular threat to the United States. The same is true of Saudi Arabia. It has had links with terrorists. And the regime is corrupt. But it is not nearly so brutal as Saddam in the treatment of its population. The Saudi family is not hostile to the United States, and this is not a regime with a nuclear weapons project. But what about Pakistan? It already has nuclear weapons, and America-haters are rampant in the land. Someday, the United States may in fact have to confront a Pakistani government eager to abet terrorists with catastrophic ambitions. The government of the moment is our ally, however. It helped in the fighting in Afghanistan, and it has helped in the search for al Qaeda terrorists. Iran may seem a threat that puts together many of the same elements found in Iraq, such as a nightmarish group of leaders, ties with terrorists and the potential for developing nuclear weaponry. A significant difference is a very real protest movement that may topple the regime, and sooner rather than later. Bernard Lewis, the great Middle East expert at Princeton, has written that Saddam's collapse could push the Iranian theocracy to collapse as well. Iran has not lately shown itself particularly determined that the United States meet the prayed-for fate of all infidels. And unlike Iraq, there was not a war 12 years ago that never concluded. Iran is not in violation of 18 U.N. resolutions. Ah, but then there's North Korea. Doesn't North Korea pose risks to America as great or greater than those posed by Iraq? Yes. But North Korea, by most estimates, already possesses at least one and maybe two nuclear weapons. Even without them, it could probably destroy Seoul in South Korea, and with them it also threatens Japan and — conceivably someday if not now — the West Coast of the United States. Part of the objective in Iraq is to keep that country from obtaining nuclear weapons with which it could blackmail the United States, as North Korea seems to be trying to do now. Also, obviously, a war against North Korea would be enormously difficult, many, many times more difficult than a war against Iraq, and it makes sense for the time being, at any rate, for North Korea's neighbors to carry the burden of diplomatic negotiations. What about that other question from the critics — the one suggesting George W. Bush is obsessed with Iraq because of the attempt on his father's life? There is a deep, anti-Bush prejudice at work in that suggestion, and it is at odds with all we know about the fact that a number of his most trusted and highly capable advisers have pushed the policies Mr. Bush is following. These advisers were not motivated by daddy-love. The assassination effort, though, does show Saddam is a berserker. He will risk everything for the sake of getting revenge. If he had succeeded in killing a former U.S. president, the United States might well have gone to war with Iraq then, it has been suggested. A man who would risk so much to satisfy his bloodlust would also happily provide a suitcase nuke to a terrorist on the way to New York City. It's something the critics ought to think about. Jay Ambrose is director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard Newspapers.