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: Mary Cluney who wrote (133122)	5/15/2004 11:37:16 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>>>1. We are going to preemptively invade Iraq to liberate their people from Saddam Hussein and to build a democracy (or even just a viable government) as an example to the other Arab countries in the region. 2. It will cost us close to $1 trillion and 1 or 2 thousand casualties (when its all over and done with), 10,000 - 20,000 wounded and 5 to 10 years to get the job done. This is a bold plan and a very risky plan. It can not be done through the back door and sneaked into existence. I believe you are sincere and you have good intentions. This kind of plan has tremendous costs and is extremely risky - all kinds of stuff (under the best of circumstances) can go wrong. Not to mention also, all the moral and ethical questions that goes pretty much against all our traditional values and value systems. Even under the best of circumstances, the plan is laid out, sold to the American public and our tradition allies, and the plan is vetted, money and resources allocated, with everyone on board - this is still a huge gamble. >>> This is not the way things are done in politics. We are getting ready to vote on a possible new President. Where are his cost estimates, his plans, his goals, his time estimates ? Who will be in his Administration ? That too is a big gamble and things can go wrong. Congress and the Administration made the decisions on Iraq, not the public. And all you ask for in the way of estimates was computed and reviewed in great detail. Assuming this or that could go wrong. The possible casualties expected were nearly ten time what you stated. The total cost over the years was not calcuable. The costs would have had to include the destruction of the oil wells, refineries, and bridges as Saddam did in 1991. And the costs and casualties in regard to his use of WMD's as he has previuosely used them, and the damage from missile use on Israel or Kuwait as he did in 1991. But even with these costs, which did not occur, the potential benefits , in the long term, and in the minds of Congress, outweighed the costs. Over the years politicians have learned not to discuss schedules, costs, or timing in DETAIL because plans must change as circumstances change and schedules are never perfect. They become grist for the typically unfriendly Presses mills. Sig

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (133122)	5/15/2004 1:42:58 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

2. It will cost us close to $1 trillion and 1 or 2 thousand casualties (when its all over and done with), 10,000 - 20,000 wounded and 5 to 10 years to get the job done. A Trillion dollars? That's pretty speculative Mary... The combat of the past year has been around $150 Billion at most.. And I find it hard to believe we're going to be required to spend similar amounts for a decade SOLELY in Iraq. Now maybe if we're required to take on Syria, or Iran, that figure might be accurate. This is a bold plan and a very risky plan. It can not be done through the back door and sneaked into existence. Sneaked into existence? Ever since we overthrew Saddam, and even before, Bush has been consistently stating that the US intent is to bring democracy and positive economic change to the Middle East. news.bbc.co.uk This kind of plan has tremendous costs and is extremely risky - all kinds of stuff (under the best of circumstances) can go wrong. Sure it is.. But merely relying upon the status quo had major risks as well. Just as things can go wrong, they can also go "right"... It just depends upon our will to see the necessity of democratic reform in the mid-east and the will we have to see this vision to fruition. But let's not say that Bush has not spoken out about bringing freedom to the Mid-East.. He has.. But he also has to be VERY CAREFUL as to how forcibly he speaks about it, lest he upset some of the existing regimes and have them directly oppose his political coercion. Hawk