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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (98942)	5/23/2003 2:03:51 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, even though I was very skeptical about the war in Iraq, in particular its aftermath, I buy the geopolitical argument. If an Iraqi peace succeeds, it will be a great step forward for the ME, and for the US. However, I am mystified why the administration is handling the peace part so ineptly. It is clear by now to anybody but idiots that: 1. A lot more manpower is needed for months in order to kick start the reconstruction successfully. 2. A lot of money needs to be injected immediately throughout Iraq to counteract the debilitating effects of the looting. Why isn't the administration acting immediately and forcefully on those two issues? Why are they planning to reduce troop numbers? Why are the billions confiscated from Saddam being dribbled out instead of being poured out? Why does the marine commander in Nassiryah, a city where a number of our troops lost their lives to liberate, has to beg for a fistful of dollars to fix the water system and hasn't seen a single face from the office of reconstruction, while 800 reconstruction staffers are cooling their heels in Saddam's palace in Baghdad for weeks, presumably writing memos to each other? Kyros

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (98942)	5/26/2003 1:23:58 AM
From: Lou Weed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<But this reasoning didn't get much traction as a political argument, and Tony Blair forced us into the UN, where we had to argue in terms of existing UN resolutions, which were all about WMDs. So the argument became about WMDs, when the main argument was never WMDs, it was Saddam and the nature of his regime.>> Ahhh I see, so it's really Tony Blair and the UN's fault for the administration submitting false evidence, buying the support of "New Europe" and alienating us from our long time allies. Silly me!!

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (98942)	5/26/2003 4:56:04 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

I think you are right and I think you are wrong. You are undoubtedly correct about the necessity of lancing the festering boil that was Iraq under Saddam. This argumentation does not, however, adequately explain the European opposition, lead I presume by leaders who understood Bush's desire to "lean into" the ME regardless of the initiating justification. It also makes Powell a bit of a sacrificial lamb at best, an unwitting tool at worst. I don't think Bush would deal with him in this way but one most be awfully cold to be a successful politician so I suppose this kind of calculation is not of the question. My clients trade on the years of good will I've built up all the time. Heck, it's part of my stock in trade; I sell it to the highest bidder all the time. I suppose Powell should feel no differently. My second point is that the WMD argument is not over. Jury is still out. Bush will deal politically with the issue the same way that Reagan dealt with economic issues: Do you feel more secure now that Saddam is gone or less?