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: greenspirit who wrote (126818)	3/21/2004 3:29:03 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What if the difference is split: I do not believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, since there is not sufficient evidence, but I do believe that Al- Qaida is weaken, for various reasons, by our invasion of Iraq. For one thing, by knocking out the threat from Saddam, we have reduced the overall threat level in Saudi Arabia, and made it easier for them to challenge Al- Qaida. By knocking out the threat to Israel of Saddam, we have made the Palestinians less intransigent, and therefore made progress in that area possible, which would undermine a prime issue. By eliminating the threat of Saddam to Iran, we have made it less likely that the mullahs can gain cooperation by citing security concerns, and therefore more likely that reform elements will challenge the government. Thus, we are on a path where we may see general moderation in the Middle East, which is inimical to Al- Qaida, since it only flourishes when the Muslim states are at least willing to look the other way. There are other reasons too, but those are ones we may commonly agree upon.

To: greenspirit who wrote (126818)	3/21/2004 3:35:37 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I should mention that someone published an editorial from the LA Times suggesting that though Iraq was better off, the world was not. Since I do not believe that at any given time the number of people willing to blow themselves up for a cause is infinite, and since I do not even believe that the number of people willing to take substantial risk of death or capture is infinite, I do, in fact, suppose that the more terrorists we kill or capture, the more progress we are making to reducing the threat to manageable levels. Even if it "helps recruitment", that is in a context where funds, logistical infrastructure, training and command structure are being stopped, destroyed, and put to flight, so effectiveness must deteriorate. In the long run, though, even recruitment must suffer. Thus, as far as I can see, we cannot help but to be better off than we were, the more so as things evolve.