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: KyrosL who wrote (127588)	3/28/2004 1:21:59 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think that by far the most damaging accusations are that the Iraq war undermined the war on terror. If that's the case, we need to start another war since the facts simply don't support such a notion. I would argue that the WOT is going very well and that the Iraq war has not so far done anything to hinder it. 1.- There have been no domestic terror attacks in the US since 9/11. 2.- The Taliban is gone and AQ as a result no longer has a secure harbor in which to operate. 3.- A huge number of AQ's leaders have been either killed or captured. 4.- Pakistan is our ally and helper. 5.- The Saudis are going after the terrorists in their backyard. 6.- Saddam, a financier of terror and a threat in his own right [recall the attempt to assassinate Bush in Kuwait], is gone. 7.- AQ's money has been stopped to a very large degree. 8.- Libya has been controlled. 9.- Iran is thinking twice about what it does.

To: KyrosL who wrote (127588)	3/28/2004 1:24:26 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think that by far the most damaging accusations are that the Iraq war undermined the war on terror. That is, I think, the real long term danger to Bush and his cabinet. And I am not just talking about I agree with that. But the more damaging material, at least at the moment, is the pre 9-11 period because there is a paper trail that contradicts the claims of the Bush administration. I'm convinced that paper trail is the reason the Bush folk don't wish to let Rice testify publicly, under oath. As far as long term damage to US security, perhaps world security, I completely agree. Clarke's discussion of the problems created by the Iraq invasion makes sense. I'm going to use it as a baseboard for my thinking about it for a while. At least until it seems not credible. The part of his argument about creating more Al Q types seems incontrovertible; the part about diversion of resources from Afghan/Al Q work, also seems incontrovertible. He makes the point that some unit whose specialty is looking for bin Laden types was diverted out of Afghan to Iraq to look, successfully, for Saddam. That unit, according to Clarke, is back in Afghanistan. The third point is powerful but waits for future confirmation. And that's the "Al Q morphed" during this period in which attention was diverted away to Iraq. And is now a "hydra headed" monster. Clearly, some of that is true. Just how much we won't know for some time.