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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (6670)	4/2/2004 11:41:51 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 15987

The only way the US could take the "matches" away is really to force reform on the Middle East. Whether most realize that or not, this is exactly what Bush's advisors have been proposing.... step by step, country by country, over a long term period of time.. Which is why most of them felt Iraq was the prime place to start... Saddam was intransigent, reckless, and unpredictable.. Saddam was engaged in genocide against his people and continuous threats against his neighbors. They had legal authority under binding resolutions related to the UN cease fire and inspection process. Iraq is smack dab in the middle of some of the most troublesome Mid-East regimes. Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves, thus guaranteeing the possibility of Iraq being able to pay for its own reconstruction, while giving the US a stable source of oil (which we obviously would pay for). And Iraq is one of the more secular Arab nations in the region, but at risk of becoming increasingly fanaticized by Salafist, Wahhabist, and Shiite militants, requiring action in the near future... Furthermore, progressive change in Iraq would have a positive impact on every neighboring nation in the region, as well as potential source of financial assistance down the road to other developing nations as it vys for influence with Saudi Arabia and Iran. Hawk