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: Rascal who wrote (136943)	6/18/2004 2:24:45 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Your frustration is likely to continue. People love their false dichotomies. There oughtta be a bumper sticker... "You can have my false dichotomy when you pry it out of my cold dead brain cells..."

To: Rascal who wrote (136943)	6/18/2004 2:29:50 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

12 years of noncompliance was enough....given the potential risks.....

To: Rascal who wrote (136943)	6/18/2004 4:45:31 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The decision was between War and continued INSPECTIONS. No, that wasn't the decision, Rascal. The decision was actually between War and "Continued inspections with a Coalition Army sitting in Kuwait poised to invade" ...because the second that army went away, the inspections would have too. So the inspections would have found nothing (since Saddam had dumped his stuff), the army would have gone home, all further inspections would have ceased, and momentum for the sanctions to be lifted would have become overwhelming (after all, hadn't Saddam just been PROVED innocent by the inspections?), the sanctions would have been lifted, then the no-fly zones would have to go (how could you justify them on a country that had just been cleared by the UN?), and then... Saddam would be triumphant. He could have done what he liked with his oil income, taken his revenge on the Kurds and Shia, and gone shopping at AQ Khan's Sam's Club for Nukes. Now tell me, Saddam being Saddam, isn't this the most likely scenario in the world? Does it look like a good one to you, especially post 9/11, with intelligence coming in that Saddam was aiding Ansar al Islam and planning terrorist strikes in the US, as Putin just announced? This is the kind of nightmare scenario that real world policy makers have to consider. To me it adds up to war now, or war later at a much higher cost. One could make arguments for either side of that equation. But this la-de-dah assertion that continued inspections would have magically solved any part of the problem of Saddam is just not realistic.