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 (102198)	6/20/2003 5:51:03 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<What's so hard to understand about this? If Bush had withdrawn this spring, there would be no going back unless Saddam invaded Kuwait again. Saddam would have won and would become The Great Survivor of the Arab world.>>> A great summary of the situation. From October 2002 with Iraq definitely in violation of Res 1441, the war was "ON" unless something of significance happened, something major, and that position was made very clear. Like Saddam becoming cooperative. Probably the hardest part for other Political parties and for Iraq to understand is that given a choice between being re-elected and getting rid of Saddam and his thugs, GWB would and did chose to eliminate Saddam and his threats and weapons. . Sig @ theironwashot.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (102198)	6/20/2003 7:05:30 PM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

a) Containment was coming apart. The status was was untenable On the contrary, it appears now that containment was extremely viable, if an absence of WMD was the goal. b) Bush determined to go to the UN. c) Bush decided to kick-start the UN and give inspections their only chance of working by planting an army on Iraq's borders. Why do you suppose Bush chose to kick-start the UN? Was it because he was determined to invade, regardless? d) Armies cannot sit without degenerating (not to mention the cost!) This is a curious argument. Do they degenerate during peacetime too? And please do not demean the human costs that have been paid since, by bringing up mere money. e) The choice was war immediately, or ignominious withdrawal with Saddam still in power and in possession of his secrets. One does not have to withdraw that which was never placed, thus averting ignomy. The rationalizations for invasion never smelled right then and they stink worse now. Democracy is about processes. No amount of spin will save this one, it was wrong.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (102198)	6/20/2003 11:52:28 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Ken Pollack's recent comments on the timing of the war, the gist being, "I don't see why now; why not wait two years?" always struck me as being totally oblivious to certain political realities: Not for the first time, you describe your own opinions - highly debatable opinions - as "political realities". Pollack is said to know a thing or two about these things, and I suspect that he has considered the factors you cite, and others that you habitually ignore, and reached a reasonable decision. It amuses me intensely that when military action against Iraq was first being discussed, you were citing Pollack as the single most authoritative source on the issue. Now he's saying something I've been saying for a long time: that the deployment was premature and unnecessarily limited our options. All of a sudden he's "oblivious". Have you considered the possibility that those with whom you disagree may not be oblivious? Have you considered the possibility that they may have valid points, sometimes points as valid as yours, sometimes points more valid than yours? The easiest way to be right all the time is to ignore any information that suggests that you might be wrong. Of course when we do that we are right only in our own eyes, and of course in the eyes of those who agree with us, but for some that's enough.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (102198)	6/21/2003 5:18:42 AM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

Nadine, I think the admin's view about when to go to war changed with the N Korea nuclear revelation. That is, invade sooner rather than later. Saddam had a lot of money. N Korea has none but is going to have fissionable material and the regime there has judgement as bad as Saddam's. The invasion would prevent Saddam from ever being a N Korean customer. I don't think this could be an argument for invading but it certainly had to have some bearing on timing.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (102198)	6/21/2003 12:08:22 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

" being totally oblivious to certain political realities: " >>Containment was coming apart.The status was was untenable< BS......The " containment " was stronger than ever.Iraq had no Air Force,a severely weakened Army,and no Navy to speak of.Saddam was cut off in both the North and South and could only pose a minor threat to Iran.IT had no missiles that could reach ANY American " Interests "...AKA : Israel And/Or the Oil Fields and those " threatened ", were paying huge sums to keep the target practice and flight training going. >>b) Bush determined to go to the UN.<< More BS......Bush was dragged ( by Powell )kicking and screaming and clinging to the door faces of the White House, while Condi and Dicki and Rummi were grasping for his toes as he stumbled off the WH steps on his way to New Yark. >>c) Bush decided to kick-start the UN<< BBS-- Bush attacked the UN as irrelevant and held them hostage to his whims.He then read them an ultimatum. " You're either wid US or A'gin US " >>and give inspections their only chance of working by planting an army on Iraq's borders.<< BBSSBS - He made his intentions perfectly clear. " We intend on Attacking Iraq..they have had all the chances we intend on giving....you want in or not ? " >>Armies cannot sit without degenerating (not to mention the cost!), so<<< Armies sent to battle often have problems when the battle is called off,not to mention the leaders who sent them there in the first place. >>The choice was war immediately, or ignominious withdrawal with Saddam still in power and in possession of his secrets.<< The choice was made two years ago,and as far as I can tell,Saddam is STILL in possession of his " secrets ", whatever THEY are supposed to be. >>What's so hard to understand about this?<< The World waits and Wonders in disbelief.The Republicans believe they are all Irrelevant. >>If Bush had withdrawn this spring, there would be no going back unless Saddam invaded Kuwait again.<< OK..stop it...my sides are a hurtin from laughter here. >>Saddam would have won and would become The Great Survivor of the Arab world.<< Maybe..but not likely....he was being admonished by all in the region and a concerted effort on their part would have brought his fall anyway eventually.But this was not considered seriously while the US was backing Israel in its efforts to thwart and delay any peace initiative.Had the US moved seriously as an honest broker on the Israel/Pal situation,the regional powers would have had more support bringing Saddam into line. But this type of thinking escapes the Chimp In Chief , if he ever does actually do any of the " thinking ". Harrrrrumph!