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: Hawkmoon who wrote (128061)	4/1/2004 11:37:47 AM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't think the fact that it is within the realm of possibility that a nation may attack us, or its weapons be used against us, is sufficient justification to invade and occuply a sovereign state. When the soviet union broke up, we knew that not only was it within the realm of possibility, but virtually certain, that lots of nuclear weapons would be floating around. It was within the realm of possibility that these weapons (as opposed to Saddam's imaginary weapons), could be used against us. Should we invade and conquer those nations? "How long do you think Saddam could have held out against the Islamic militants gaining prestige in the region?" I don't know, how long do you think he could have held out? He seemed to be doing a bangup job of it, much better than his neighbors Syria and Iran, and probably better than the Shiite government of new Iraq will do. "Or do you suspect that were silent splinter cells strategically positioned by Wahhabist and Salafist leaders within the Sunni communities, awaiting the proper time to initiate their takeover from the Baathists?" Why would I suspect that? Why are you bringing it up? "Hello??!!" Hi!! "The risk is that Iraq might have fallen into civil war anyway, with us looking at it from the outside and not being able diffuse the situation quickly enough." I suppose there is a risk that any nation may fall into civil war. Why would it be our job to defuse it? "But even beyond that, there is substantial evidence that Saddam harbored a strong desire to retaliate for his defeat in Desert Storm." Where is this "substantial evidence"? Seems to me he wanted no part of fighting us again. "In fact, he would have to retaliate at some point in order to display to his rivals that he was still "baddest of the bad" amongst them." Any evidence support your conclusion that this would have been an inevibility? "This goes in line with his attempt to assassinate George Bush Sr, as well as the strong circumstantial information that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi intelligence asset (1993 WTC bombing)." Actually the Kuwaitis made up the assasination attempt. "And it certainly goes in line with why he would continue to harbor terrorist specialists like Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas (ever wonder why Nidal was killed by Iraqi security prior to the war)?" Because in the middle east it is prestigious for a leader to stick it to the jews. Sticking it to the jews has been all the rage over there for decades. "Can you say that, given the political and mental condition Saddam was in, that he could be trusted NOT to directly attack the US (even via proxies)??" Yes. Any attack would result in his destruction. This is evidenced by the fact that an attack he had nothing to do with resulted in his destruction. "Remember, his very name meant "to confront". He took its meaning very seriously. It's how he lived his entire life, and seems to be what he's doing even now.." Yes, totalitarian dictators do tend to be confrontational, but he had never indicated any desire to attack the U.S. Whew, those were a lot of questions. I don't know that posing a serious of fifteen or so questions in a row is an effective debating style.