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: GST who wrote (122110)	12/26/2003 10:51:19 AM
From: broadstbull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You can change the subject of the debate if you wish. You originally stated... <<<Germany was not being crushed by UN sanctions and Germany was not under UN inspections>>> This is laughable. Germany experienced a deeper suffering during the depression than any other major nation. Due to versailles they were on their knees. This has been written about extensively as a cause for Hitler's rise to power. <<<nothing changes the fact that Germany had immense scientific and industrial capability when Hitler came into power.>>> True, but compared to the rest of the Arab world, Saddaam probably had the largest Military and technological capability. (at least, as far as anyone knew. This was agreed upon by British, French, Isreali and US intelligence) Comments from Clinton and others in the 90s clearly agree with this thinking. And like Nadine posted...... <<<Had France and England marched in 1936, the Third Reich would have collapsed, and everybody would have looked at the still small industrial capacity and army to say "See? there was no danger! you marched for nothing! Hitler was a buffoon, not a serious threat!">>> Taking out a threat before it reaches its potential power is never popular. I'm not in total agreement with the neo cons, but Nadine makes a valid point. Bush took a huge gamble by taking on Saddaam. If he emerges victorious, it will be seen as a huge shift in history. A shift towards preemptive deterrence. Depots will think twice before getting out of line. The Mid East may actually change it's face and the politics of people similar to Sadat will become popular. If he fails (very possible) the reaction will be a planet where lawless despots will push the limits of international law and bully their neighbors at will. The US will retract, as it did after VietNam. Did Bush have a right to make this gamble? Depends who you ask. How this gamble will be perceived will be determined by his success. We can't turn around and run now, can we?