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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (70458)	7/14/2003 8:09:36 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

RE: "...how do we get Saddam out without force." WE, we, we! You have some pretty big presumptions. Crimes against humanity are unacceptable to all nations that have signed the UN Charter. Most nations are not willing to attack another nation. It is difficult to establish Crimes against humanity even though, by some criteria, they are happening constantly. We don't get Saddam out without force. We didn't get rid of very many leaders and governments on a par with Saddam. I would have accepted a declaration of war by the US Congress based on crimes against humanity. That didn't occur. That isssue wasn't presented to Congress. Bush exploited the fear caused by 9/11, created a bogus threat in Saddam, and led us to war because some of his government's oficials have wanted to attack Iraq for many years. I don't really blame Bush. I accept a diminished capacity defense for him. It is very likely that Bush believes that Saddam was a threat to national security. I think that if Ted Baxter were President, he would believe it, too.

To: Fred Levine who wrote (70458)	7/15/2003 6:07:09 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

what should be done to eliminate Saddam and neither you nor Cary and certainly not Zonder gave any answer. Your "question" assumes that something SHOULD be done to "eliminate" Saddam. I don't agree with that assumption. I don't agree that a country or several countries should have the right (let alone the obligation) to remove the head of a sovereign country because they don't agree with his way of government. If he attacks your country, than that is right of defense and is a different story. Do note, by the way, that in assuming your country has the right to remove other heads of state, you are paving the way for other countries to do the same to you. Not that it would be that much of a degradation of the international political scene, after your president placed a reward on an ex-head of state currently in exile, which paved the way for other countries to do the same to Bush, probably. How long do you think Bush would live if there was a USD 25 mn reward on his head? Thirty minutes max, methinks...

To: Fred Levine who wrote (70458)	7/16/2003 10:50:54 AM
From: runes	Respond to of 70976

Fred <<...how do we get Saddam out without force.>> ...Obviuosly Saddam would not step down without some kind of coercion - either direct force or a very credible threat of force. But that, by itself does not justify the use of force. As with most things in life, one must look beyond the benefits and also examine the cost. For instance - it would have been easy to rid the world of Saddam just by nuking Baghdad. ...In the current conflict there were two potential costs that I was not willing to risk - (1) Damage to an already fragile US economy. IMO the war stopped last years recovery and forced the economy into an even deeper malaise. To the point that now even Greenspan is worrying about a deflationary spiral. ...And this is more than just a selfish consideration. Consider what the worldwide impact would be of a collapsing US economy. (2) Support for a regime that is profiting politically from war. 9-11 was forced upon us and made Afghanistan necessary. And took Bush's popularity from ho-hum to Yeah! Baby! ...But Iraq was a choice. And it was pursued, in whole or in part, to maintain the momentum of Afghanistan It was a war fought for political reasons, not humanitarian ones. ...Or did it escape your attention that, shortly after Bahgdad fell, while Bush was riding high on a new surge of momentum, we started rattling sabers at Syria? And when GWB was finally steered away from Syria (a major asset in the war on terror) he started in on Iran? ...Fortunately the problem in Iraq which is not a quagmire has robbed the juggernaut of it's momentum - at least temporarily. Yes, it looks like we are going to be able to avoid the worst of those costs. But it was a considerable risk we took. Was there a better way? How about do nothing? ...Consider that sanctions do appear to have stunted Saddam's WMD ambitions. And that it certainly withered his ability to savage other nations. Containment is not justice but it certainly kept Saddam in his place. ...And the alternative (Bush's solution) may have made life in Iraq worse than under Saddam. No more state torture but now you have random acts of violence, looting, disease. And a power vacuum that could devolve Iraq into an African style civil war. Which brings me to the philosophy quip of the day - "Primum non nocere" - First, do no harm. And here's to hoping that we pull it off.