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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (45842)	5/20/2004 3:53:33 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

What I remember most about the WMD issue before our invasion was not necessarily the threat now, but what Iraq would look like 3,5 or 10 years from now if we left him in power. Many believed he would acquire nuclear weapons in this time frame, and because of his hatred for America, would funnel one into the hands of terrorists hell bent on destroying our way of life. Some thought he would invade another country in the Middle East, after having attained nuclear weapons, and we would feel hopeless to stop him under the threat of a nuclear attack. Still others felt he would smuggle quantities of chemical or biological weapons to Al Queada or other terrorist agents. Nothing we have, or have not discovered, has convinced me these arguments didn't have merit. The fact is we simply don't know how quickly he could have put any of these plans in effect, because, they would undoubtedly have involved the help of other rogue nations or entities to accomplish. What we did know was he had the money to eventually build such a device, he had the madness to use one (having already used one against the Kurds), and he had the temerity to invade another country in the region (having already done so in Kuwait). Saddam's failure, contrasted with our great success, was that he was too impatient to complete his weapons program development before he invaded Kuwait and America woke up to his aims. Like Hitler before him, who didn't wait until long-range rockets were developed, Saddam made a similar mistake and we had the guts to remove him from power before he really caused havoc on a worldwide scale. Personally, I was in favor of removing him for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the prevention of human rights abuses and the establishment and spreading of democracy in the region. We had to get the ball rolling; Afghanistan is just too small a country (without the resources), to demonstrate what a modern Middle Eastern country could look like if given a chance outside the grips of a dictator. It may take a while longer than any of us wanted to see, but the momentum toward democracy and free market capitalism in the Middle East is clearly building. Free markets and democratic governance will do more to ensure the worlds long-term peace and prosperity than a thousand marches shouting slogans will ever do. This is how cultural transitions are made, you first have to create the environment for people to succeed, then allow them the freedom to find their own path toward prosperity. With Saddam in power, and demented sons who ran a Bathist mafioso ready to relieve him, the transition toward building a just and prosperous society would never have occurred in Iraq without America's intervention. Putting America's future and the continued growth and prosperity of the world in the hands of a madman (hoping he would change), was simply to high a price to pay after 9/11. It's really as simple as that.

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (45842)	5/20/2004 4:35:21 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

but if you did...go back and read any of my own posts prior to the war I wasn't sharing a thread with you during that period but I have occasion to go back and look at some of my old posts. I just looked now at some of the early stuff that I've clipped both from SI and other sources. I have nearly 400 clips on the subject. It was sad to look at them because one of the first ones I came across was a column by Michael Kelly, who was a favorite of mine. that there were a host of reasons to do what we did, not simply one. There were, indeed, several reasons including Saddam's defiance, humanitarian help for Iraqis, oil, Saddam's connections to al Qaeda, and democracy, but the overriding rationale given was that Saddam's WMD's were going to kill us in our beds if we didn't get in there and destroy them. That was the kicker. Personally, I never bought it. Even if he had them, the likelihood of being able to deliver them on a sizeable scale was enough to warrant the risk of war. But for most people I know that went along, both in 3D and here on SI as people struggled with this, it was about us being safe in our homeland. Whether you personally thought this was the salient reason or not, it was the one that got most of the attention and it was the go/no go issue for most people.

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (45842)	5/20/2004 6:08:32 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793914

Well, if you haven't been following my posts, you probably did not read me say, many times: ~ that I am glad that Saddam Hussein is gone; ~ that he was a bad man; ~ that the Iraqi people are better off without him; ~ that the American people are better off without him. Nevertheless, the premises of the war were WMD. Those premises have turned out to be horribly mistaken. I don't believe Bush lied, I believe he was terribly misled. As for Abu Ghraib, I am very pleased that the US military isn't treating this as a frat prank and no big deal, and that the perpetrators are being prosecuted expeditiously. If you believe that the events at Abu Grhraib are an essential part of American warfare, I have no problem being "CB against ya'll." Further, the US military begs to differ with you. I am glad to have the opportunity to set my thoughts straight with you, but I see nothing fruitful in continuing to argue about the above.