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: arun gera who wrote (104898)	7/12/2003 4:11:53 AM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 281500

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. Well see? You have all the answers already! Thanks. Now I can move right along... Derek

To: arun gera who wrote (104898)	7/12/2003 9:14:44 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<<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.>>> You are seeing pretty clearly. What the Adminstration wanted was an inarguable demonstration that we would do as we said, seek out and destry terrorist organizations wherever they exist and convince national leaders that support or harbor them that it will not be tolerated. Afghanistan was not enough, it seems, to do the job,since Saddam refused to comply and thought perhaps he could continue to defy the UN . If we got every other Nation to condemn terrorists, there would always be Iraq and Saddam, saying come to me you will be safe here-the US wont dare touch us. The Arab argument about Afghanistan could be that they were just a bunch of disorganized tribesman living in the hills with primitive weapons so of course it was easy for the US, and besides OBL got away, didn't he? Saddam had already defeated the UN, deluded the inspectors, forced them to leave. Even after Afghanistan, we were looking hesitant and weak.. Words and agreements in the Arab mind, when dealing with West, are merely talking points, never firm, never final. Bargaining tools to be twisted. It takes an action , a 2 by 4 on the head, to get their attention and make them realize that the US is serious about preventing terrorists from doing the things they have threatened to do, crash an airplane into a nuclear carrier in Hawaii, destroy the Golden Gate bridge, and many other threats they have made. That shoe bomber was an example of what was prevented- more people could have died in the crash of that airplane than all of our war casualties to date in Iraq. It is very important for the world to understand our position, in the interest preventing more wars. It is a position they can understand, defense of their own homeland., economy and interests. Let us take advantage of all opportunities to reinforce our determination and be convincing.. The opposition of the UN can work in our favor, to convince those who are not yet convinced that we will act unilaterally (if needed) to eliminate those who threaten us. The cost of the war will help also, that we WILL spend whatever amount of money needed to do that job. The voices of the opposition, of liberals and peace harpers and the peace marchers will also help others get the picture, that GWB and the Administration cannot be stopped from doing the job defined. . HAVE OUR ENEMIES GOT THE PICTURE YET? Are we getting across to them that the US will not tolerate foreign threats or support of terrorism? Not quite, but making excellent progress. Saudi Arabia is taking action. The Hamas and Arafat are backing off a bit, Iraq cannot be a breeding ground or provide WMD they knew how to make, and many Nations are convinced that if they supply money to support terrorists it will be tracked and intercepted even if in Swiss bank accounts. N Korea, IMO. realizes that they will be in deep do-do if they ever try to sell nuclear goods for profit. Sig@itsworking.com