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 the French! Viva Democracy! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (591)	4/2/2003 12:06:14 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 7833

LOL. You sure had me fooled Thanks :-) I checked your profile and got a chuckle from the "French connection." I am not French. I have been living here for a couple of years now and am quite fluent in French. Proud to be, actually - I get ample praise from the French who are used to Anglophones spending tens of years in their country without learning even the basic words and phrases, who they say cannot even shout "Help!" in French to save their lives :-) And it's not a cabriolet but a teflon rocket. You and I are in the back seat and he has us tuned out Very true :-) Still, certainty of having little to no effect does not mean that we have to support him in his suicidal (no, homicidal) run. 1) There would be fewer body bags, for sure. US and Brit soldiers that is. There might be a much greater toll on Iraqi civilians, though Why do you say there will be more Iraqi deaths if Bush were to end the invasion? 2) We might disabuse ourselves and other nations of the notion that preemptive war is OK. I think that is one damage already done, cast in concrete, and dried. 3) We could save money--further red ink from the war and the costs of rebuilding Iraq. I agree. While quite important to those living in the US, I don't think the financial cost is one of the more important risks in this invasion. 4) The UN would get new life. Whether that's a good thing or not is arguable From where you sit in the US, it may look like the UN is dead, but that is not the perception of the rest of the world. The US throwing a temper tantrum because the UN would not support its aggressive intentions and declaring it irrelevant doesn't make it so. Seriously, my understanding is that the rest of the world does not feel UN needs a new life. 5) We obviate the problem of Balkanization in Iraq because the strongman would be in place. Or perhaps we just postpone it. Not sure about this one. The US made it clear on numerous occasions that they are not for a divided Iraq (even if that is against the wishes of the populace) so the region will not be Balkanized even if the war goes on and a US-friendly rule is established in Iraq. Eventually, nations who want independence tend to get it. So perhaps, as you have said, the said Balkanization will eventually happen regardless of whether this invasion is carried to term or aborted now. 6) We might persuade a few people that we're not the nasty crusaders and imperialists that they think we are, but probably not many and the suspicions would remain. Don't think we can get many of those particular locusts back in the box. Here, I disagree. I believe the "nastiness" in question is not a binary state but a gradually increasing index. That is, every day that passes, every bomb that kills civilians in a Baghdad market, further darkens the view with which the rest of the world sees Americans. A quick end to this conflict, would stop the harm where it is now and prevent it from going further. I am not sure if Americans understand the extent of the damage here. I read in WSJ today an interview with an Afghan guy of 20, who was happily enjoying the cellphones, Pepsis etc the Americans brought (not to mention the freedom) but still grinned and said they would be happy to kill Americans wherever they are, because they are killing Muslims. Not just Muslims - you should see the damage in Western Europe. In a recent poll, only 54% of the French said they wanted the Americans to win in Iraq. This is not a support for Saddam, but a reaction to the American aggressivity and their increasing "nastiness" index. I have to say it is reaching very dangerous proportions. I would not be surprised to see the world become a very dangerous place for Americans in the near future, which I assume is the exact opposite of the outcome most wish from this conflict. 7) The dominos stay in place, probably, or maybe not. Maybe some of the ME dominos are emboldened What if the Arab countries come out of this conflict united against the US? Not sure we would enjoy that outcome. 8) Saddam gets his oil fields back I don't see that as a horrible outcome, given (6). Countries have the right to their own resources, even when ruled by dictators. I cannot agree that the US has the right to seize Iraq's oil riches in any case. 9) he gets to keep is WMD, if he has any. That's a big "IF". And even if he does have them: (1) He will be one of many countries who have WMDs. (2) It's OK as long as he uses them only for defense, which is and will be the case since he knows their use will cause in the annihilation of his self, nation, and country by a coalition of far more powerful countries, which I believe is why he has not used them yet in this conflict, nor in the 12 preceding years.

To: Lane3 who wrote (591)	4/2/2003 3:44:53 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7833

<<Which of Pandora's boxes might we close if we quit or further open? 1) There would be fewer body bags, for sure. US and Brit soldiers that is. There might be a much greater toll on Iraqi civilians, though. Hard to say where the balance is there. 2) We might disabuse ourselves and other nations of the notion that preemptive war is OK. Or not. Don't know if we could get those particular locusts back in the box or not, but there's a chance. And that would be a most worthwhile accomplishment. 3) We could save money--further red ink from the war and the costs of rebuilding Iraq. Those savings are measurable. What costs in future conflicts might be incurred as a result of not fighting this war, who knows. 4) The UN would get new life. Whether that's a good thing or not is arguable. 5) We obviate the problem of Balkanization in Iraq because the strongman would be in place. Or perhaps we just postpone it. 6) We might persuade a few people that we're not the nasty crusaders and imperialists that they think we are, but probably not many and the suspicions would remain. Don't think we can get many of those particular locusts back in the box. 7) The dominos stay in place, probably, or maybe not. Maybe some of the ME dominos are emboldened. 8) Saddam gets his oil fields back. 9) he gets to keep is WMD, if he has any. ................ I agree with you on number one- although I think it would also save Iraqi lives, but it might not, as you say, hard to tell. I totally agree on number 2 and 3. I think the price tag could be great to do what we said we're going to do, and if we're not going to do that, I don't see the point in spending a little bit of money to do a poor job that will get us blamed just as much as no job at all. As for 4 I wonder if the UN hasn't gotten a bit of life simply because the US chose to disregard it? It has been seen by other nations as our rubber stamp (at times) and this DOES show that the UN is not our lackey- a valuable perception in the world, I think, if the UN is to work. Of course that assumes we, the US do not try and succeed in killing the UN. But if we do not kill it, I think the UN defiance of the American will may have made it a more viable organization. jmo 8 and 9 I agree with you on- and don't have much of a problem with those. 6 is hard to decide on. Could go either way. But a bit of humility in a superpower might be a good thing. 7 I'm not sure about. I think the dominos will have to be changed by what has happened. I'm just not sure how, and nobody can be.