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 (166754)	4/5/2003 5:22:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583407

I think the author was saying that Bush went to war with Iraq to support his thesis on the axis of evil and to make his point; not for political reasons. I think he picked Iraq because they were defeatable and we did not have to worry about nukes. He makes good sense. I think its pretty much BS, except the part about the nukes. I think Iraq wasn't picked as such it was the problem. Saddam is no better or worse than his axis of evil peers. I think Iran has more chance to change from within. Also the "axis of evil" was only three countries, none of which has agressivly initated a war by invading its neighbors since before I was born except Iraq. None of which has so flagrantly broken cease fire agreements and important UN resolutions in recent years except Iraq. He is no worse nor better than the desposts who rule Iran, NKorea, Syria, Burma etc. Burma doesn't threaten US interests. Even Iran and Syria have not threatened them to the extent Iraq has. North Korea should also be dealt with but since it could kill millions of South Koreans or even Japanese there is no easy solution. In any case I fail to see how the fact that other countries are or could be a problem would mean that Iraq isn't or that invading Iraq was wrong or even that taking on Saddam was done only to make a point. There are a number of countries that are stronger. Burma, Pakistan and NK are just three that come to mind. All three have armies 500k or larger and all three are thought to have nukes or to be close to having them. I mentioned Pakistan and NK. I don't think Burma is as powerful or is closer then Iraq was to getting nukes. Burma has a lot of men under arms but doesn't have as much heavy equipment such as tanks and also its army has been busy fighting against other armed groups within the country. In the ME, Syria's military is considered to be far more dangerous than Iraq.....on par with Israel, and it supposedly has chemical weapons Syria hasn't threatend our interests or broken ceasefires with the US the way Iraq has. Considering all the damage that was done to Iraq' military even before the war Syria might have more military capability then pre war Iraq, but not on par with Israel. Also I did mention Syria already. 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. I just gave you a few. No you mentioned one country that I didn't mention, Burma. If we wanted to just grab oil, we could have grabbed Kuwait's during a long lunch break. This is the argument argued by children.......its pretty silly. The accusation that the US just does whatever it wants to grab oil is silly but once you take that accusation seriously then grabbing Kuwait's isn't so silly. Tim