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: KyrosL who wrote (99904)	6/2/2003 8:01:16 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The future benefits are entirely hypothetical. The dead from recent Regime Change are entirely real. Why assume the Rosy Future Scenario? Afghanistan, today, is an even worse place to live in, than it was under the Taliban. Amazing, that we could create something worse than that. The same could be true for Iraq. 12M dead in 30 years is 33,000/year. I can construct several (equally hypothetical) futures, where more Iraqis die than Saddam (and sons) would have killed: 1. We get tired of Empire, withdraw, and the Kurds,Shiites,Sunnis, do to each other, what the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims did in Bosnia. 2. We withdraw, and the Iranians, Turks, Syrians invade, to partition the country. They fight each other, and the various armed Iraqi groups, endlessly. 3. We stay. 5 years from now, 500,000 U.S. troops are barely keeping a lid on a nationalist guerrilla uprising. One million (more) die before we give up and go home. 4. Saddam really did have WMD. And he really did move them into an adjacent nation. And then into a container on a cargo ship that goes to New York. And goes bang. We do the "3 eyes for an eye" thing.