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: Sig who wrote (133738)	5/21/2004 10:43:34 AM
From: Dr. Id	Respond to of 281500

cutting off his ability to create WMDs Did I miss something? Did we find them? And, if not...if he had the "ability to create WMD's" before we invaded, why wasn't he making them? Could it have been that the inspections were working? No, that's just naive fantasy. Because if the sanctions were working, then we had no real reason to invade and our actions could be seen as illegal "empire building" (which the president is on the record as being against and he never lies because he has restored honor and integrity to the White House).

To: Sig who wrote (133738)	5/21/2004 12:27:32 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 281500

Perhaps in time we can develop a certain guilt complex for removing Saddam from power, cutting off his ability to create WMDs, destroying all those lucrative oil kick-back programs, and forcing an investigation of UN funds. No, Sig but perhaps in time we can begin to understand that our actions were foolish, unnecssary and harmful to both societies. One of the points made in an article I read today is critically important and too seldom discussed; ie: Why didn't Saddam Hussein's torture and murder provoke a "cycle of violence?" What Americans did at Abu Ghraib was disgusting. But surely it pales in comparison to Saddam's cruelties. Why was there no guerrilla warfare against Saddam? Why weren't Saddam's friends and relatives and henchmen kidnapped and murdered in response to the violence against his own people? If the American abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib provoked the death of Nicholas Berg, Saddam Hussein's cruelties should have ignited an apocalypse of resentment. The quick answer to these puzzles is that we are infidels. The Arabs cannot tolerate Westerners, especially Jews, on "their" soil. The tyranny of Saddam Hussein provokes less outrage because after all, he is an Arab who belongs there. American tyranny, even at more modest levels, is simply unacceptable. Article cited in this message: Message 20151528 If he's right, and the events in Iraq make it difficult to argue that he's not, then we can talk all we want about the "moral" or the "sensible" thing for the Persian Gulf nations and peoples to do, but we ought to understand the difference between theory, reality and naive, wishful thinking. This is especially true when we're betting the lives of our soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars on creating some tangible, long-lasting benefit as a result of our efforts and it looks more and more like a sucker bet every day. Some, maybe most, middle eastern experts warned that to attempt to "stabilize or remake" Iraq through foreign invasion occupation would be folly but we rolled in there anyway. And if those were truly our goals, we came not humbly but to TELL the Iraqis what was acceptable as a future for them and to "create democracy in the Middle East." If the author of that article has his finger on the pulse of the Arab culture, however, then we are learning a lesson that had been written and rewritten many times in the past. Those of us who don't read much or don't listen to the things we don't want to hear, and who thought we were so "right" that the Arab world could not help but embrace our ways of governance and our core values, have learned that lesson again. Or at least I hope we have. It's important that we get out as soon as possible. The Iraqis have prioritized their problems and, unfortunately, it appears that with 9 out of 10 Iraqis wanting us to leave, it didn't take us "infidel invaders" very long to get to the top of the list. It doesn't matter why they put us up there; if it wasn't a wedding party massacre or prison tortures, it would have been damage to a Mosque or the rape of an Iraqi girl. The strong sense of "hive" was there, the cultural barriers were present and it was only a matter of time until we faced the choice of escalating into more brutally harsh repression at a continuing cost of lives and fortune, or leaving. In my view the only remaining questions are how soon can we get out and what can we do to minimize the damage we'll leave in our wake? If we wish to pat ourselves on the back for the paltry benefits we've gained, as Sig does, fine, let's just get out and call it whatever we want.