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: KyrosL who wrote (136421)	6/12/2004 11:13:02 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If we had spent one tenth of the resources we spent on the war (and none of the lives) tightening up the sanctions and shutting down the smuggling, Saddam would have collapsed within the decade. That was beyond our power. It required the cooperation of Turkey, Syria and Jordan, who were NOT cooperating, since they profited greatly from the smuggling, and of the UNSC, where France and Russia (who had Billions of reasons to want to lift the sanctions) were not cooperating either - just the reverse. Do you remember what happened to Colin Powell in 2001 when he went to the UN and tried to tighten the sanctions? He got his head handed to him.

To: KyrosL who wrote (136421)	6/13/2004 7:55:53 AM
From: quehubo	Respond to of 281500

Have you any clue to what the significance of the UN oil for food corruption along with our Allies treachery with Saddam signifies? Really I cant believe anyone would be touting containment as a strategy that was going to be a strategy that we could improve upon. The vast majority of nations were subverting the UN resolutions while we were being shot at flying air cover. Quite the contrary our friends in Russia and France would have been driving real hard over the last year to uncontain Saddam so they could open up their oil contracts.

To: KyrosL who wrote (136421)	6/13/2004 1:06:25 PM
From: Dennis O'Bell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If we had spent one tenth of the resources we spent on the war (and none of the lives) tightening up the sanctions and shutting down the smuggling, Saddam would have collapsed within the decade. I've heard that one before - a certain Castro comes to mind. But he'll fall any day now.... I agree it would have been more cost effective to leave Saddam in power and sacrifice the Iraqi population to perpetual economic sanctions, the odd flyover, UN "inspections" and all the rest. What we've spent already would go a long way on that. So far, it's working in North Korea - or seems to be. But there's no oil there. Ultimately our dependence on oil is the root of all these problems, and terrorism is kind of a side issue. The odd terrorist sucker punch here and there in the civilized world won't end civilization (though it'll create a lousy legal climate and restrict all kinds of freedoms we take for granted.) But any really significant reduction to the flow of oil before alternative energy sources have been developed will bring the house down in short order. I'm unsure if terrorist attacks that could do this are feasible, some have been saying they are and it's just a matter of time.