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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18674)	12/4/2003 11:36:19 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793677

You seem to assume that “doing nothing” and invading at once were the only available options. I don’t think that’s the case. I’ve never objected to the goal of removing Saddam, but I believe that if the process had been managed differently, perhaps with a little lower priority on American domestic politics and a little more thought for the future of Iraq, the prospects for the future of Iraq might be substantially different than they are today. Exactly. Not that it hasn't been said before, but somehow it never seems to sink in. Thank you for putting it in such a succinct and forthright manner. It probably still won't sink in, though. Unhappily.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18674)	12/5/2003 2:17:54 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793677

Steven, I believe I've read practically every one of your posts related to "what else should we have done besides invasion" and frankly, they've been grossly wanting in presenting a realistic alternative. The fact that I read and considered them, because of the respect I have in your thought process, demonstrates I had some degree of open mindedness on the issue. The simple fact is, given dozens and dozens of posts and many months of thinking, you failed to convince me we should not have invaded. To make my point further, most of the time whenever you've criticized the thinking of those who believe we should have acted (such as this post), what is glaringly missing is an alternative plan. Bringing peace and justice to Iraq and the Middle East first demanded the removal of Saddam Hussien and his followers from power. And every plan, proposal, or idea I've seen presented by those opposed to invasion fails to deal in any realistic way with this fundamental problem. Wishing him away won't work. Dreaming up scenarios wich may take years to initiate, and which in all likelihood would have failed, while costing thousands of lives in the process was unacceptable to many. Every action and inaction presented a degree of risk. You seem to believe not acting was a benign act which was demanded given the seriousness of the undertaking. A genocidal murderer such as Saddam Hussein wasn't going to be pressured into leaving power. As the events demonstrated, as the pressure increased, he simply became more embolden, more radical and more defiant. In fact, one could easily make the case that not acting, and not having the courage to remove him from power was in fact giving him more influence with terrorists in the region. As an analogy, when you are standing across the street watching one child after another being murdered by a madman with a knife, and you have a gun in your hand. Sometimes, there is only one way to end the bloodshed. And that's to raise your hand and kill the tyrant as quickly as possible. We had dozens of reports that Saddam was basically doing the same thing day in and day out in Iraq. And many were willing to stand by and watch another decade of torture, under the fear that the bullet might ricochet and anger another knife murderer follower.