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: Sam who wrote (128632)	4/7/2004 11:56:24 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Change of the sort you and others are contemplating is always tricky, and violence of the sort that the US has done is rarely successful in bringing about something positive. Absolutely... I certainly recognize the risk.. But I also believe that 9/11 made such an effort to create change in the region mandatory for winning any sort of "war on terror".. The reaction we saw from quite a few Arabs after 9/11 should have been a wake-up call that the US is sqarely in the target sights of Islamic militants around the world and their militant perspective is gaining greater popularity. No.. it won't be easy, but if we're successful in Iraq, it might, just might, mean that we'll develop a powerful ally with the national resources (oil) needed to pit themselves against the Wahhabists and Salafists being sponsored by certain Saudi clerics. If we fail, then I guess we're going to have escalate the situation to some sort of full mobilization, or tuck our tails between our legs and await the next massive suicide attack on the US homeland. Hawk

To: Sam who wrote (128632)	4/7/2004 1:38:56 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Change of the sort you and others are contemplating is always tricky, and violence of the sort that the US has done is rarely successful in bringing about something positive. That is certainly true. However, you must factor in the unique awfulness of Saddam's regime into the equation, and the crumbling of the sanctions. All this stuff we now hear from the left about how Saddam was a lamb, no threat to anybody, and the situation was totally under control is a bunch of crap. Had nothing been done, the sanctions would soon have dissolved entirely (France and Russia were doing their utmost to help), and Saddam would have been free to complete his shopping trip at AQ Khan's Sam's Club for Nukes (we know he tried even under sanctions). Then we would have been facing a nuclear-armed and triumphant Saddam, the only question being in which direction he would point his aggression, and whether he would do so directly or through terrorist proxies. That is why the Bush administration was paying attention to Iraq from day one, not because the neocons had a sudden urge to go conquer the Middle East.