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: KonKilo who wrote (108369)	7/27/2003 4:00:17 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Because a public case for 'encouraging' reform all over the Middle East, using force in places where necessary, has profound implications for every state in the region, particularly all the other badly run autocracies, some of which, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are still our ostensible allies. This is why the other Arab regimes (except some of the directly threatened Gulfies) did not want the war at all. If the diplomatic pretence was kept up that this only concerned Saddam and his WMDs, then they could be cajoled/coaxed/coerced into going along with it. Had the arguments for widespread political reform been made openly by the US government, it would have stiffened resistance, and for pride's sake, they would have had to oppose to the utmost this proposed inteference with their internal affairs. So, the US Government kept up the diplomatic pretence. Stephen den Beste has summarized all the strategic reasons he thinks the US fought the war in Iraq. It's a good summation and jumping-off point for discussion: denbeste.nu