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: NickSE who wrote (101100)	6/11/2003 12:11:01 PM
From: NickSE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

America's new mission was and remains: Extirpating the flaming nutballs and the societies that nurture them by James Lileks jewishworldreview.com It would be nice to find the weapons of mass destruction. As many have pointed out, we haven't found Saddam Hussein either, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist. We haven't found his doubles -- although it's possible they're all concealed with masks, passing themselves off as understudies for the Baghdad production of "Phantom of the Opera." Nor have we found the sons. Supposedly one of them is in the Baghdad suburbs, negotiating for his surrender, but that could be one of the son's doubles. We may open a sewer grate some day and a hundred Udays will pour forth like the myriad Agent Smiths in the recent "Matrix" movie. Does the failure to find WMD mean we were handed a sack of lies? Nope. The administration was clear from the get-go: Iraq was part of the Axis, and the Axis had to go down. Each part would be sundered as circumstances permitted. The destruction of the fascist regime in Baghdad would be the object lesson for the region, the proof that America had a new mission: Extirpating the flaming nutballs and the societies that nurture them. Of course, that was not how the war was sold. Because the administration sought U.N. approval, the issue became enforcement of U.N. resolutions -- and those had to do with disarmament. Because the Bush team sought a greater moral legitimacy, it also phrased the war in terms of liberation, and removing a government with ties to terrorism. Good reasons, all. But the invasion wouldn't have happened without Sept. 11. George W. Bush's Iraq policy would have been another round of sanctions, scowlings and pinprick reprisals. You want to blame the war on someone, blame Osama bin Laden. Oh how nice, you say. Look, we were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Saddam was a threat, Paul Wolfowitz rescued Jessica Lynch using a Jedi-Knight lightsaber. Lies! All lies! Storm the White House with pitchfork and torches, friends -- it's impeachment time! Calm down. Would the Republicans be harping on the WMD issue if Clinton had invaded Iraq -- and found nothing after six weeks? Probably. In the '90s they had the same political tin ears as the Democrats have today. There was a time when Bill Clinton could have been photographed sacrificing goats in an Oval Office Black Mass, and he would have gotten a pass. The Republicans would have worked themselves into a goggle-eyed fury -- People! Don't you see? Goats! Upside-down cross! Brimstone all over the carpets! Same thing here. There is little political capital to be gained with the vast middle-of-the-road electorate. The Bush-haters would be convinced that secret Halliburton operatives planted any WMD the allies find. The pro-Bush side claims they really aren't bothered by the absence of large caches stamped SMALLPOX -- FOR EXPORT ONLY, but they are quietly rooting for the inspectors to find something besides the two Winnebagos of Death so far uncovered. The middle of America, those who could vote either way, have moved on. Job well done; mission accomplished. The relatively low death toll, the subsequent discovery of mass graves, the horror stories now pouring forth, and the overhyping of all the postwar travails have left them in no mood to carp. Press them on the issue, and they believe the WMD will turn up somewhere. Under the sofa, perhaps. Maybe they rolled under the fridge. Weapons of mass destruction, car keys -- they're always in the last place you look. In the long run, it's not what we don't find in Iraq. It's what doesn't happen. No more mass executions. No new prisons for children. No bonus checks for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. No Terrorism 101 classes at Salman Pak. No electrodes applied to the daughter of a man who talked to CNN. No daily potshots at allied aircraft. No sudden sluice of fear in the hearts of the Kurds when the government trucks appear on the horizon. No miserable thuggish satrapy in the middle of the Middle East, thumbing its nose at the United Nations and the United States. Come election time 2004, the Iraqi oil proceeds will not be going to secret Swiss accounts named Chick Daney and Ronald Dumsfeld. They'll be going to the people of Iraq. We won't be arguing about losing the peace in Iraq. We'll be arguing about losing the peace in Iran. But that's another story. For another presidential term.

To: NickSE who wrote (101100)	6/11/2003 11:37:45 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 281500

July 9th is the day to watch. Yes, it is. I've suspected lately that much of the talk of impending upheaval in Iran is influenced by wishful thinking. Lots of dramatic statements, but little tangible evidence that opposition influence has spread beyond students and urban intellectuals, which it must do if it is to succeed. The opposition is clearly doing all it can to make something big happen on July 9, and it will be a major test for them. We'll see what happens. It's not a nice thing to say, but the worst thing that could happen to the regime, and thus the best thing that could happen to the US, would be to have police open fire and kill some demonstrators.