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: tejek who wrote (166750)	4/5/2003 2:24:39 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583403

He is right, probably. Saddam Hussein's forces have put up a braver fight than anyone expected but there is no way an impoverished state without nuclear weapons can meet a full-scale invasion by the United States. That's why Iraq was chosen. That statement makes it seems like Bush felt he needed to go to war with some country for political reasons and Iraq was week enough to be a good target. I think that idea is nonsense. Iraq was "chosen" because it is run by an aggressive dangerous despot who has violated the cease fire agreement and UN resolutions for over a decade. It wasn't a case of having to find a country and choose it. The situation with Iraq and Saddam is the reason for the war. No other country could be "chosen" that would take care of that situation. Also Iraq is not particularly week as far as countries go. Sure it is a lot weaker then the US but there are many countries militarily weaker then Iraq was at the beginning of this war. A lot more are weaker then stronger then pre war Iraq. aberdeennews.com I suppose the list of those that are stronger (in no particular order) might be US, USSR, China, UK, France, Germany, Italy, North Korea, South Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan, Israel. Japan has more military potential and more powerful sea and air forces but I don't think it has a lot of heavy armor. It spends a lot more on its military and in many ways has more power but it could not have easily taken down Iraq without first building up its army even without political and legal restrictions getting in the way. Taiwan might be consider more powerful but it also had less tanks, with more focus on air and naval forces. Egypt and Syria would have to be considered at least in the neighborhood of Iraq's pre war military strength. Turkey, South Africa, Vietnam have decent military strength. Brazil, Argentina, and Poland all have at least potential strength. Other then those I can't think of any country that is even close to what Iraq had. If we were looking to just take on a week country we could find plenty of other options. If we wanted to just grab oil, we could have grabbed Kuwait's during a long lunch break. A US network fires a veteran reporter in Baghdad, New Zealander Peter Arnett, for stating the obvious on Iraqi television. Our Prime Minister is rebuked by the US Embassy for expressing, as she put it, the "bleedingly obvious". The fact that everything has not gone 100% perfect is obvious but that is true of every war. Beyond that it wasn't so "bleedingly obvious" but if Arnett had said what he said on an American or British news channel then it would not have been such a big deal. By going on Iraqi TV and saying what he said he, intentionally or inadvertently made himself an arm of Iraqi propaganda effort. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (166750)	4/5/2003 11:30:56 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583403

Ted Re.....The region is in ferment now and the US is in danger of getting some democracy there. I hope it happens While the author finishes with this sentence, I think this sentence epitomises his feelings. Ultimately the US cannot win this war. It might succeed in making a martyr of Saddam Hussein but some of the men who wield influence in Washington at present hope for much more. Frankly, I think it should be the other way around. It is the fundamentalist arabs, espoused in Wahibbism, who cannot win this war. Yes, given enough time, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, might not espouse the values inherent in democracy, and we may be forced to defeat another country, who is a source of terrorism against us. But the arab world cannot keep up terrorism, without exploding from within. Eventually, those who espouse terror will be consumed by terror, as their jihads end in disaster for their countries. Al Qaeda's war has resulted in the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the capture of many of their operatives in Pakistan, with even arab countries such as Yemen waging war against them. I haven't seen that many battlefield successes. The terrorists haven't even been able to dent Israel; and there are signs, Palestinians are tiring of the fight. Eventually popular opinion will turn against those who espouse terrorism, because there is no future in it. In the past 70 yrs, we have seen over 70 countries go for democracy. It is time to see if the arab nations will embrace democracy, and reap the rewards. It is worth a shot, because there is no future in the current state of affairs in the arab world. Yes, this war could lead to riots, but don't be so sure, that democracy won't be the winner, as democracies, not monarchies, not totalitarian dictatorships, lately have usually been the end results of popular uprisings, such as the french revolution. Communism was the results in the early to mid 1900's but communisms downfall, has left democracy the last obvious choice.