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: Neocon who wrote (127389)	3/26/2004 9:28:09 AM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Stipulation: The old Clinton Administration was more fearful/focused/wary of Bin Laden's danger prior to 911 than the new Bush Administration. If this statement is accepted (and let's not waste time arguing about the particulars). Let us assume it is not a faulty premise. Then why would that be so? Why the change from one Administration to the other? Please all you smarties, ponder and answer. Talk among yourselves. This exercise is similar to a scientist proving the existence of a black hole or invisible planet by quantifying the known to uncover the unknown. Why? Why? Why? If the premise is accurate, why would the Bush Administration feel comfortable with ignoring the danger of Bin Ladin? Rascal @CondiKnows&IsAfraidOfTheQuestion.com

To: Neocon who wrote (127389)	3/26/2004 9:36:22 AM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"By terminating the regime, we could once and for all eliminate a threat to the stability of the region and to US interests that had been lingering for no good reason. We could finally fulfill our promises to the Kurds and Shi'ites who rose up against Saddam in the early '90s assuming our backing, and who were left without recourse when clandestine attempts to overthrow Saddam failed. We could make a demonstration of resolve that other rogue regimes would take to heart. And we could alter the politics of the region by eliminating Iraq from their worries and by providing an example of Arab democracy, supposing we succeed." That's all well and good, but I don't think it is a terribly good use of resources at a time when we are under attack by islamic terrorists. I think those 140,000 troops and $120b could have been better used to capture or kill Bin Laden and his co-horts.

To: Neocon who wrote (127389)	3/28/2004 9:32:52 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Neocon; Re: "We could end containment by ending the regime ." It is only your ASSUMPTION that this was an option. It is the DESIRE of the administration to end the policy of containment by ending the Saddam regime; do not mistake DESIRES with OPTIONS. As it is, *the present situation is nothing more than a continuation of containment*, but with the extra feature that it is far more expensive, requires far more soldiers, does damage to our long standing relationships with allies, gives much more encouragement to fundamentalist terrorists and kills far more Americans. If we end up pulling out and Iraq becomes an inherently unfriendly, islamic state, we will be back to option of containment, but we will no longer have the backing of the UN to actually make sanctions stick. So our containment will be hopeless. -- Carl