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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (118820)	11/7/2003 8:30:11 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"People don't pass 'by chance' through the capital city of a totalitarian police state - certainly not guys in Youself's line of work. He had somebody waiting for him in Baghdad. To assert otherwise is to display ignorance of the nature of Saddam's rule." Why thank you Nadine. So any other construction but yours is an admission of ignorance. That's such a decent way to approach a discussion Nadine. So since no one would be in Iraq by chance, then there would be no anti-Saddam terrorists there- is that what your saying? Because that follows from what you just said. Perhaps you would like to reconsider? "If Zawahiri's interests were so different from Al Qaida, why did he merge the Muslim Brotherhood with Al Qaida later that same year?" We've discussed this one already. But thank you for pointing out, as I did in our last discussion, that they had not merged at the time of the gift. Zawahiri had interests in Egypt and Afghanistan as I went over in DETAIL last time we talked about this. Those other interests. "If ideological enemies never make alliance against a common enemy, then I guess Winston Churchill never allied with Stalin in WWII." Stalin, and his minions, weren't inside Britain champing at the bit to get rid of Churchill. If you can't see a big difference there, and a much greater need for caution, I can't help you with that one. But Nadine, I wouldn't be os sure your construction is the only one. I wouldn't call you ignorant for your opinion, but I do know that right now, it's just your opinion. "The destruction of the WMDs wasn't obvious to anybody - paying billions to hide weapons you don't have anymore is not a working assumption most intelligence agencies would sink their credit in. It simply goes to show that Saddam made irrational decisions. (BTW, I love this reflex 'we were complicit' swipe - which upsets you more, when the US supported Saddam against Iran or when they deposed him? one would think that if the first displeased you, then the second must please you. But one would be wrong.)" This shows a complete lack of understanding for a position based on international law, and a respect for sovereign countries. I was very displeased with our friendliness with Saddam in the past, because we were friendly with him in order to perpetuate a proxy war, and I don't like proxy wars, because I think they violate the spirit of respecting the sovereignty of other nations, and I am also displeased when we get into bed with tyrants for regional interests, but I prefer isolation, or forms of engagement that do not include invasion. I am displeased with invading Iraq in order to depose him because that totally vitiates the sovereignty of Iraq as a country. Was Saddam bad- yes. Was he so bad we should invade to get rid of him? IMO- NO. It's a horrible precedent; we won't be able to afford to do it anywhere else; and now we can't even respond to real military threats elsewhere, much less errant depositions, because we're tied up in Iraq. It was bad for international law, and international relations, and I feel our security has been dramatically weakened as a result of this war. "Who are the usual targets of Islamists? How much would you bet that we weren't among them? Have you forgotten 9/11 already?" And she makes the 9/11 + Iraq connection with no evidence. Good one. No I didn't forget about 9/11- that's why I've been talking about the Saudis, about the Pakistanis, about Afghanistan, about several other ME countries.... "Number 6 goes to intent. Arab politicians have for many years been sucked into foolish or even suicidal courses by their own bravado. Witness Nasser in May 1967." Sorry Nadine. This one just doesn't work for me. We already knew his intent was to bluster. We all remembered Iraq war one, and the bluster from that. We don't need to 60 back 30+ years. "Because support for sanctions was just about gone in the UN, and the sanctions themselves had become so full of holes that they scarcely mattered. France was lobbying in the UNSC to get them lifted - we had managed to stop this so far, but at considerable cost in trouble and political capital. Do you want to see all ways and evidence for this? Read Ken Pollack, he'll tell you in detail." You said containment AND sanctions were breaking down. But you only talked about sanctions. I don't think you can argue Saddam wasn't contained. Well you could argue he wasn't, but I don't think you could do a very good job of it. It's controverted Nadine. But if you have the opinion that everyone with a different opinion is just ignorant, and not looking at things differently, or looking at different evidence, then I guess I see how you think it is uncontroverted.