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 Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (177954)	11/14/2003 5:07:17 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576619

John, SH was an aggressor in 1991. The policy put in place by Bush #1 and continued through Clinton had made him impotent. I think the Iraqi's would differ with you on this issue. He was certainly not impotent to them. As would victims of Palestinian suicide bombers (compensated by Saddam). Now if the US had worked through NATO and the UN and said this guy is a humanitarian nightmare, maybe we could have put together a coalition that would have figured a way to knock him out. Maybe it wouldn't have been a war, maybe it would have been a war. Regardless, if the world was united on this thing, I think that the situation would be far different. Yup, I couldn't agree with you more. The thugs attack Americans, but if the UN had a presence there, along with Red Cross, troops from Britain, Italy, Poland, they would not be targeted. And the thugs would immediately stop making car bombs, become law abiding citizens, and they would recycle. Joe

To: Road Walker who wrote (177954)	11/14/2003 7:23:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576619

Joe pretty much handled my response for me. He hit the main points I wanted to hit. Would something like 35,000 more non American soldiers make a big difference? The one difference it possibly could have made would be to make Saddam think that caving in early and completely on inspections would be the only way to prevent the US and allies from removing him from power but 1 - If he was wise and well informed he would have realized that anyway. 2 - A big coalition lining up behind the US on this one probably wouldn't have happened anyway, and the delay involved in the attempt to get one would be more likely to have made Saddam feel that an invasion would not happen, then it would be to make him afraid of it happening. 3 - If he really was convinced that a massive invasion would have happened he might have actually prepared his defenses better, perhaps including producing a small amount of chemical or biological weapons. (He may or may not have destroyed all of his stockpile but either way Iraq retained the ability to make the weapons and while we were maneuvering for UN support, or at least NATO support he would have had plenty of time to start producing again). None of this would have defeated the invasion force or saved Saddam's grip on power but it might have made the invasion more costly. 4 - If non American, particularly non-Nato soldiers made up a bigger part of the invasion and occupying force casualties might have been higher because of the lower level or equipment and training many other armies have and because coordination of forces might have been more complex. Its possible there might have been less American casualties but there probably would have been more allied casualties and maybe more Iraqi deaths as well. 5 - If the UN or other international body where to take over the control of the occupation it would be harder to make and implement quick decisions. Its hard enough as it is. NATO would have been better then most other bodies but it still would involve more complex politics to make any decision. Tim