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: epicure who wrote (131037)	5/2/2004 5:59:15 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

if you want to define "caring" as invasion and occupation, which you apparently do. If my only choice is invasion, vs. working for an end which accorded with Saddam's own wishes, then I did choose invasion as more "caring". I simply do not count working to lift sanctions as working against Saddam. How can I, when Saddam wanted sanctions lifted? You kept saying you would find "people of the left who thought it was urgent to work against Saddam in non-military ways", but you haven't found any, nor specified any of those non-military ways.

To: epicure who wrote (131037)	5/2/2004 6:16:49 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

When do we actually get to get some hard data about how much better off the Iraqi people actually are because of our intervention? There are so many other authoritarian dictatorships in Africa and South Asia where the fine touches of American diplomacy should be applied if we can demonstrate efficacy. If our military and diplomatic policies were being submitted to the FDA for approval, I don't think that we would have the objective evidence for efficacy. I need more than assurances from Bush that God chose him and that his prayers are answered. I want to know what scriptural references he reflects upon and how he's going to implement those scriptural principles. So, the question remains, what metrics do we use? 1. Cities and industry still ruled by elitist Generals [ ] Yes [ ] No 2. Troops were welcomed as liberators [ ] Yes [ ] No 3. WMD's identified and destroyed [ ] Yes [ ] No 4. Humanitarian infrastructure fully functional, post deployment [ ] Yes [ ] No 5. People tortured by liberators [ ] Yes [ ] No 6. Self-determination in place [ ] Yes [ ] No 7. A free and neutral press exists [ ] Yes [ ] No 8. Infant mortality has dropped [ ] Yes [ ] No 9. Bin Laden or other terrorist linkage identified, proven and destroyed [ ] Yes [ ] No This seems like a good list to start with. When do you suppose that the current administration policy and their tactical deployment of Bush's policies will be complete so that we can start to collect objective evidence about the purported improvement in the quality of the lives of Iraqis? I do care. But I don't think that Bosnia, Afghanistan or Iraq can pass this quiz and have us come away saying, "Wasn't it great that we intervened and here's why."