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: broadstbull who wrote (95436)	4/21/2003 10:38:46 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What better than to attack in Iraq and ruin any possible good that could have come from Iraq's regime change. If he creates a situation worse than Iraq with Saddam, he nullifies any success the United States can claim in the Iraq war. Plus, as you say, there is no shortage of losers that would line up to support him. Bingo. Somebody finally gets it. They don't have to create a "situation worse than Iraq with Saddam", either. They have to get the US to leave either before a fully Iraqi government is installed, or while that subsequent Government is still weak enough to be undermined. The first half of the Iraq war was fought on grounds and with weapons that favored us heavily. In the second, we will be on much more even ground. Unfortunately, it's the outcome of the second half that will determine the eventual winner. It's a very vulnerable target. How many American civilians would have to be killed before corporations would start pulling people out, undercutting the reconstruction effort. How are we going to provide security, prevent attacks, and hunt down terrorists if the local police and security forces won't cooperate? Why should we expect them to cooperate?