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: D. Long who wrote (104890)	7/12/2003 3:58:30 AM
From: arun gera	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>Just because the reasons aren't "good reasons" to you, and you wish to argue the (moot) point into eternity is no reason for me to entertain you. Go back to the August, 2002 posts and read forward. Pretend. Derek > I have been reading a large number of posts written from August 2002, even yours (I will hold back on commenting about the entertainment value). I keep an open mind. Still looking for the real reasons behind going after Iraq. Yes. There were lot of reasons given. Something for very fear - if you were scared of Islamists, there was one for you. Scared of poison gases - throw that in. Still scared of nuclear bombs. Throw that in. Known fake report about Niger uranium connection - still include it. Ricin - they got that. Throw in the word WMD, which everybody interprets in their own way. Great propaganda tactics. You believe them because you want to believe them. Because you want to feel good about yourself. And if someone does not agree with you then question their patriotism. What I see clearly is: The Administration wanted war at any cost - whether a large number of people,nations,and organizations across the world supported it or not. Iraq was weak and not strong and dangerous as the case was made out to be, so less of a threat. Iraq was attacked because it was weak. The administration knew that the military operations were winnable. In fact all planning (lower number of soldiers etc.) indicate that the administration was confident that it will easily vanquish the Iraqi military. Iraq has oil. And that is an important factor. And the US has control of those facilities. Obviously US will not just give away the loot. The oil money will definitely benefit US companies that rebuild Iraq. Iraq had very little connection with Al Quaeda or other Islamic terrorists (Palestinian suicide bombers are not WMDs) . Therefore that is the weakest argument for attacking Iraq. US has had some military victories that were followed ultimately by strong economies in those ecountries (Germany, Japan, South Korea). Hopefully, Iraq will be another such case. The current situation is not stable, but certainly not as bad (or will necessarily continue to be as bad)as some media paint. -Arun