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: Ilaine who wrote (136265)	6/11/2004 4:35:26 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

There have been times, recently, that the US was involved in wars in places that had nothing to do with US security interests, e.g., Kosovo. Actually, I would think it was more in the interest of Europe that the US get involved. I seem to recall that the Europeans were intent on handling the situation themselves, but failed. And eventually it required US intervention. I know that's a very broad brushed recollection.. But the US didn't get involved in the region for many years after civil war first broke out. We were a late player to the "game" there. Just as Europe is being a late player to the "game" in Iraq. I said what I had to say. If I had known then what I know now, I would not have supported it. But isn't that exactly the point CB? There's NO WAY ANY OF US COULD KNOW WHAT WE KNOW NOW (or think we know), had it not been for overthrowing Saddam!! The only way anyone could know is to actually know what was going through the minds of Saddam's inner circle. Hell, even many of Saddam's generals thought he had chemical weapons ready to be used in during the war. So unless you're a psychic, a member of Saddam's elite political clan, or just taking money, like Ritter, to espouse unsubstantiated positions, there's no way you could be certain. Hawk

To: Ilaine who wrote (136265)	6/11/2004 5:02:52 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

have yet to see, post-war, any evidence that the war was, on the whole, a better idea than continued sanctions and no-fly zones If that was the choice, I agree. However, the arguments that containment was failing were persuasive to me then, and nothing I've seen since invalidates them. So the downside potential of leaving things as they were went something like this: containment falls apart as UNSC support evaporates. Sanctions are lifted [France and Russia make billions]. The No Fly zones become untenable. Saddam is free to go shopping [and we know a lot more now about where he could have gone shopping]. Meanwhile, Saddam is free to enhance his working relationship with Abu Nidal, Ansar al Islam and Al Qaeda, while continuing to fund the Palestinian sucide bombers. Saddam having scored a major victory, all the other Arab regimes play kissy-face with him, and all thought of reform evaporates in the Arab world. The US does another major climb-down in the Arab world, to add to a long list: Beirut, Somalia, the Cole, etc. What part of this argument seems far-fetched to you, or has become invalidated by new information? It wasn't an attractive option before 9/11, and after 9/11 the idea of it became insupportable.

To: Ilaine who wrote (136265)	6/11/2004 6:01:32 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<If I had known then what I know now, I would not have supported it.> CB, I don't think I've been surprised about anything in Iraq. I didn't think there were WMDs. I didn't think Saddam and Osama were in cahoots to any significant degree. Abu Nidal and other global criminals found some haven in Iraq, but not all that much and the smallest hint of being not good for Saddam and it was game over for them - I think not many AlQ terrorists would have been set up in Iraq as it would have been hazardous to their health. I didn't think the USA would be met with ululating women and flowers. I thought there would be a rearguard guerilla fight, with the actual invasion war being over in the orbit of a Globalstar satellite [about 100 minutes] though I admit that was an exaggeration because it would obviously take longer than that merely to drive unimpeded from Kuwait to Baghdad and Mosul and Tikrit. I thought Saddam would be hiding where he grew up, near a river and not far from a palace and his old childhood haunts. I thought the UN should be heavily involved and taking the lead rather than the PNAC. [We don't yet have the NUN but we are making progress]. I thought there would be about as many casualties as there have been. I'm not the slightest surprised that torture and deaths in custody have been discovered [I'm surprised that people are surprised]. I thought it a good idea to attack Saddam, sons and co. So far, so good [the usual blunders, criminality and bad luck notwithstanding]. Now we have Resolution 1546. Nyah, nyah, told you so!! Also, I recently said that Ghadaffi's "new leaf" was perhaps cover for nefarious activities, maybe even including have a bought nuke [from Pakistan] somewhere. Now it's rumoured that he was wanting to cause insurrection in Saudi Arabia, I suppose on the basis of my theory of "Put a bullet through the middle east" as a way to get oil prices up and maintain market share. I'm not surprised to hear that he's after insurrection in Saudi Arabia. Leopards and spots! Maybe you are just annoyed at believing the disbanded Office of Disinformation tricks. Mqurice