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: cnyndwllr who wrote (132834)	5/13/2004 1:43:26 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<<Hey, war is war, dead is dead, and stupid is stupid. If you go to war; go to war as a LAST RESORT. That means try everything else first and then try it again. That means be sure that your goals are achiveable.>> Thats the key to the argument, you say war was not a last resort, others say different. Was war a last resort when Iraq invaded Kuwait.? We could have waited until Saddam had 44% of the worlds oil under control, or we could have waited until he invaded Iran or Saudi Arabia. Or we could have done nothing and seen oil go to $10 a gallon and Saddam had 100 nuclear missiles. Would that have been enough, in your opinion, to represent a last resort? Was 911 a last resort, or should we have considered it a one time event and waited for the next hit before taking action, And even then, why not take other action than starting a war (as a last resort). Was war a last resort in Iraq.? We tried the no fly zone patrols at $5 bil/year and he kept shooting at the airplanes. We tried the sanctions and food for oil programs and he stole the money and bought off powerful people even in the UN. The UN drew 17 lines and he stepped over each one, kept persuing WMD's and accumulating offensive armaments. Refused to meet the requirements that would have ended the 1991 war. In my opinion, words and politics did not work and unless something was done Saddam would have his nukes and WMD's and the time to implement a 'last resort' would have passed. We could say goodbye to Israel and all other investments in the ME. Sig

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (132834)	5/13/2004 1:43:34 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We went to war because best intelligence indicated that Saddam was preparing for the offensive use of weapons of mass destruction. Not only would that be a regional catastrophe, but we were inevitable targets as well, considering that Saddam had vowed revenge for the first Gulf War, and that we are the major military power guaranteeing the stability of the international system. Considering the nature of the weapons, and the guess work involved in intelligence, we could not afford to wait forever. Indeed, we had no idea of the extent of his WMD stockpiles or his nuclear program until after the first Gulf War, so if anything we were bound to err on the side of caution. However, there were other factors in finishing off his regime. For one thing, we had made representations to the Kurds and the Shi'ites after the first Gulf War that encouraged uprisings that were horribly put down, only to have the palace coup we were counting on fail. Thus, we had a moral debt to work off towards those groups. Further, the attempt to allow for humanitarian sales of oil had gone awry, and we were faced with the possibility of lifting sanctions, which would only have given him more money to pursue his ambitions. Also, we were under ever bolder attack in maintaining the no- fly zones. Then there was evidence of ties to various terrorist groups, although not enough was known of the nature of the ties to Al- Qaida. Still, there was reason to fear the use of terrorists as proxies in attacking the United States with WMDs. Finally, the Saudis had asked us to leave our base, in which case the continuation of containment would grow increasingly problematic. Saddam was playing ring around the rosie with the inspectors, and summer is an awful time to launch a campaign, so Bush decided we would bring it to an end. Most Iraqis are happy Saddam is gone, and consider it worth it. Most Iraqis consider themselves and their families better off than they were a year ago, and even more are hopeful for the future. However, once we invaded, we assumed an obligation to ensure a sufficient degree of stability and reconstruction to give the Iraqis a decent chance at a normal life. Only a wholly irresponsible nation would have left them to fight one another with a decaying infrastructure, after disrupting their previous arrangements. This will do for now........