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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (128646)	4/7/2004 2:50:02 PM
From: Lou Weed	Respond to of 281500

<<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>> hmmmmm, I wonder....... newamericancentury.org "The Bush Doctrine is also notable for what it is not. It is not Clintonian multilateralism; the president did not appeal to the United Nations, profess faith in arms control, or raise hopes for any “peace process.” Nor is it the balance-of-power realism favored by his father. It is, rather, a reassertion that lasting peace and security is to be won and preserved by asserting both U.S. military strength and American political principles."

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (128646)	4/7/2004 3:03:58 PM
From: Dennis O'Bell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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. Not really.... The Baathist regime had what international politics favors uber alles : stability. Just like North Korea is nice and stable. That North Korea could very likely be a (though they're not the only ones) source of nuclear weapons is way down the list of criteria where international diplomacy is concerned. All the more so if the likelihood would be that any of these weapons are used against the US civilian population and not anybody else. I don't believe Iraq had any real weapons of mass destruction left at the time we invaded, though the regime did have lots of stockpiles of other arms (as well as mass graves and other nice things to their credit.) But if sanctions had ever ended, I'm pretty sure that the regime would have started their program up again at the first opportunity, rather than taking Libya's route. This whole argument wouldn't ever have had to be made though if we'd been able to do what needed to be done after the Gulf War. In hindsight that was a real mistake not toppling the regime then and getting it over with. We probably wouldn't even have needed to leave military bases in Saudi Arabia.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (128646)	4/7/2004 11:35:29 PM
From: John Soileau	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<However, you must factor in the unique awfulness of Saddam's regime into the equation,>> Sorry, Nadine, NOT at all "unique". Inhumanity on a greater scale is unfortunately commonplace. Hutu/Tutsi comes to mind (Gee, why no Yankee intervention; I sure didn't see any neocon activism there!?), Sudan ("a separate civil war has raged in the south of Sudan for two decades, pitting the region's mainly Christian and animist peoples against the largely Muslim government in Khartoum. Up to 2 million people are believed to have died") and Zimbabwe are healthy current contenders. Both curiously, and assiduously, ignored by bleeding-heart neocon interventionists. Explain that. If you can, without pretzel logic. <<Saddam would have been free to complete his shopping trip at AQ Khan's Sam's Club for Nukes>> Seems rational that if you don't like nuke shopping, you should close the store (duh!). Yet that's not what we can expect, since Bush and his coterie of neocons was, and is, remarkably cozy with this lying, proven, profligate nuke vendor; explain that. If you can, without pretzel logic. Bush attacked a country that was not the goddam pusherman; in fact, Bush provided foreign aid for, and professed friendliness with, Pakistan, the actual nuke pusherman. Explain that. If you can, without pretzel logic. Thanks in advance. John