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: michael97123 who wrote (35305)	3/18/2004 11:42:49 AM
From: zeta1961	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793656

Good question mike...I've got one also... Much discussion has involved Blair's and Bushes lies about Saddam, WMD etc to get the world involved in it's war... If that is the case, than why would the US allowed reporters embedded with the troops unlike any war we've ever witnessed...getting a play by play account 24/7...if they'd been lieing...I hardly think they would allowed this kind of transparency during the war...which leads me to believe they operated sincerely based on the intelligence given to them...and it's the intelligence we as Americans should be angry with...some might argue, Bush is in charge of intelligence administration and that point has validity too... Zeta

To: michael97123 who wrote (35305)	3/18/2004 12:31:46 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793656

Knowing what we know now about iraq, would it have been more prudent to concentrate more on al quaeda and continue containment in iraq. I don't think your question is capable of an intelligent answer because a lot of what we have done to AQ may not be known. With that caveat in mind, let's try to objectively list the results of the war in Iraq: 1.- Saddam is gone. A huge destabilizing influence and potential financier of terror is no longer on the map. This is a huge plus not only for those obvious reasons but for many more. 2.- We have a military presence in the ME outside of Arabia. Don't discount the value of this. It makes despots and terrorists very nervous, as it well should. It contains them and shapes what they do. Libya is the best example so far. 3.- We've done away with the paper tiger image once and for all. Anyone who thinks that the US is not willing to spill its own blood to achieve a result better think again. In a word, the Clinton legacy is gone. 4.- We've secured a source of oil if the Saudis for some reason fall or cut their production drastically. 5.- We've begun the process of showing the Muslim ME populace that they have choices, that democracy is a real option, and that they don't have to necessarily be ruled by thugs. I've no doubt missed a lot of other points, but these are the main ones, I think. The cons of the war: 1.- Europeans not happy. They'll get over it. A row among friends that will eventually heal. 2.- The expense. Yes, it was a huge expense. Is it worth it? Take a look at points 1-5 above and make your own decision. I think it was worth it. 3.- Took away resources from the WOT--the gist of your question. How has the WOT been really affected? Globally, it seems that the terrorists have had some success, witness Bali, Spain, and a host of other incidents [I'm not mentioning Israel because terror there is sui generis, related almost exclusively to the Palestinian problem]. But we've been fortunately incident-free in the US. I would say that, at least domestically, the WOT does not appear to have been affected by the war in Iraq because there have been no new incidents. We appear to have been successfully keeping terror out of our borders while slowly taking down the terror infrastructure and leadership. I'm very, very happy so far. Bush gets my ringing endorsement for a job well done. And a difficult job it is. Terrorists are nebulous and sneaky, they don't operate in the open. Given the size of our nation, its open nature, and the many things at which they could strike, it's simply amazing that we haven't been hit with another mass attack. Given the recent Spanish incident and the increasing political sophistication of the terrorists, it would not surprise me if they didn't try to commit mass terror in an effort to influence the US elections. In my view, any such terror would result in an almost certain Bush re-election.

To: michael97123 who wrote (35305)	3/18/2004 1:49:28 PM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793656

i suspect that its time for Uncle and EU to reconcile yep - I used the words "its time for us to listen", you used different words. Is the meaning any different ?

To: michael97123 who wrote (35305)	3/18/2004 11:48:30 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793656

Knowing what we know now about iraq, would it have been more prudent to concentrate more on al quaeda and continue containment in iraq Who says we have lost concentration of Al Qaeda? You cannot pursue Al Qaeda with an army. It's an intelligence war. We caught Khalid Sheik Mohammed one year ago, just as we were going into Iraq. What exactly do you think we would have done, that we did not do? As for providing "more motive" to Al Qaeda, they hardly need more. Their rallying cry used to be "infidel troops on the sacred soil of Arabia", remember? Their real root cause is the geopolitical situation of the entire planet, and their demands are that we return to a fantastic and mythical version of the past. Not unlike Hitler's romance of blood, soil and the German Volk. Like the Nazi romances, the Islamist visions are non-negotiable. Finally, if we had stuck to pursuing Al Qaeda only, we would have sent the message that the terror masters, the harboring states, were safe, except for the special case of Afghanistan, that had almost been taken over by Al Qaeda. Saddam safe. Khamenei safe. Assad safe. Gaddafi safe. Crown Prince Abdullah safe. Nothing to worry about. Do they feel safe today? Clearly not. Saddam is gone, Gaddafi has flipped, Saudi Arabia is trying to placate us, and Syria and Iran have signed a defense agreement while Iran works furiously towards a bomb. This current unsafe situation clearly has good and bad points, but I would say that while it looks worse, it's actually much better than the previous situation, in which we pretended we had no enemies while permitting them to plot almost unhindered. Real war always looks worse than the drole de guerre.