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: Sam who wrote (114041)	9/6/2003 11:30:59 AM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You and others are making the error of identifying Saddam with the war on terror. Common mistake. Wonder why? italy.indymedia.org lurqer

To: Sam who wrote (114041)	9/6/2003 11:54:54 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<Not only that, the Bush admin will have someone else to blame for the trouble. If things go badly, they will blame the UN. If they go well, they will take credit for their wonderful leadership. This administration is brilliant at avoiding taking responsibility for their actions. >>> 1. 911 and Saddam both dictated some action 2. No matter what action is taken, something, somewhere will go wrong 3. Whatever goes wrong will be blamed on the Administration in power. Sig@dodgethembullets.com

To: Sam who wrote (114041)	9/6/2003 3:45:52 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

the allies in WWII were willing to use any and everything--right up to scorched earth tactics. It was do or die. If we would have had to destroy every city in Japan in order to win, we would have. Ditto for Germany. We can't do that here. We could.. But it would be far bloodier than it might need to be. It would mean invading Saudi Arabia, dismantling the Wahhabist power structure and killing or imprisoning its advocates.. But can you imagine how Roosevelt would have responded had some group of Wahhabists destroyed the Empire State Building? The US would have kicked Saudi Arabia's @ss, invaded and reinstalled the Hashemites, or partitioned the country again along its previous tribal lines. And I almost wager that, were it not for global reliance upon SA's oil production, Bush might have been tempted to do the same thing after 9/11. But the course we're taking is more complex, and more subtle, IMO. We may not be required to invade Saudi Arabia (which would be bloody on all sides). But we have to be in a position to intimidate the royal family into understanding that we're not willing to permit their tolerance of Wahhabist militants in their country, or funding such operations around the world through their "charities". And by taking Saddam out, the US has unwittingly aided our enemies in the war on terror. How so? Do you not believe that most of these extremists were only a heartbeat away from sighing up for Jihad anyway? With 30% unemployment, no economic opportunity in sight, and continuing corruption in their governments, it's only a matter of time before they became combatants. And if they weren't attacking US troops, they would have been seeking to undermine regimes throughout the region. I can't believe that DOD strategists didn't believe that Islamic militants wouldn't eventually migrate to Iraq. I have to believe that they incorporated this expectation in their thinking from day one. But it's politically incorrect to publicly announce that the plan was to draw militants into Iraq for a fight.. It would send the message to Iraqis that the US wished to use their country as the primary battlefield for conducting the war on terror. They can't say it, but folks like myself can speculate on it. But we need to get the Iraqi security services vetted, trained, and in action. They have just as much to lose as the US. Hawk