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: Sig who wrote (116122)	10/3/2003 12:18:41 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thanks. Yes, it was a cesspool, and we needed to begin draining it. Iraq was the first on the list because we were already engaged in containment, and because it was the pre- eminent, and most radical, military power in the region.......

To: Sig who wrote (116122)	10/3/2003 2:33:55 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

What are you and Neocon talking about?! Everyone agreed, including the French, on the danger of the Hussein regime. The only controversy was on whether to continue with containment (which, incidentally, we and the British bore the brunt of) or go to war. Quite reasonably, the Administration thought that the Iraqi situation had to be resolved in order to make progress in the region, and to give us a freer hand in the long run. And thus, we went to war...... This action doesn't give us a "freer hand" in the region. It ties us up in the region. It distracts our attention from Al Qaeda. It is a financial drain. The cost of the containment of Iraq wasn't anywhere even close to what this war is costing us, and will cost us in the future. The "Iraqi situation" could have remained on the back burner, or could have been dealt with in a number of other ways that would not have cost us as much as this will, either in terms of money, morale of troops and people at home, international standing, or attention. But the real truth is, the Bush admin wanted to use the war to get a political victory in the election of '02, and that is why they did it in the way they did it, rather than in a slower, more diplomatically sensible and effective way. Even Salam Pax, who agreed that Saddam needed to be overthrown and that the Iraqi people needed help to do it, said that Bush should have been "more patient" and done things differently than he did. Yeah, yeah, I know--you or other Republicans will pontificate, "12 years isn't long enough?!" What nonsense. Sure, Iraq was undoubtedly flouting some resolutions, but the real truth is, they were not an imminent danger to anyone at the time, except perhaps to some Israelis since they were paying Palestineans to kill themselves and others. The US can't and shouldn't run their foreign policy based on that when there happen to be more important enemies to worry about right now. Terrorists were getting aggressive,exceedingly dangerous, threatening our economy , embassies, and people. Not Iraqis, though. Al Qaeda. Mainly Saudis and Egyptians. Why on earth are you equating Saddam with "terrorists"? It is possible we could have maintained the no-fly zones for the next ten years, at great expense and discomfort to nearby nations ,provided the the UN , after continuing inspections,did not decide that Saddam was no threat to anyone. It would have been a LOT less expensive to have maintained the no-fly zones than it will be to maintain our occupation. And a LOT less dangerous, both to world peace and to our own troops. Beyond Iraq,we will need trained, experienced, and younger troops to continue the war on terror. We now have them, still learning, especially in locating and identifying the enemy and learning to survive. Are you saying that Iraq is a training ground for our troops to learn how to fight against terrorism?! And the Defense budget needed strengthening, as it has been Its a matter of positioning, for the work ahead. Just the end of the beginning, as will be noted from the next major terrorist attack somewhere. The Defense budget on which we spend more than virtually every other country combined needed strengthening? Somehow I don't think you've thought about this very much.