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: epicure who wrote (139137)	7/7/2004 2:38:10 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

That is because you do not take into account the whole situation. We were already there to uphold the embargo and the no- fly zones. There was a growing unease about the diversion of oil- for- humanitarian needs, with estimates of up to half a million children dying from malnutrition or disease, and pressure to lift sanctions. We had a moral obligation to help the Kurds and Shi'ites, after encouraging uprisings prematurely after the last war. In other words, Iraq was ripe for settlement, once and for all. Additionally, it would change the dynamic of the Middle East, by relieving a great source of anxiety for the Saudis and others on the Arabian Peninsula, and removing a serious threat to Israel. In the Territories, it would take away a source of funding for local terrorists. Finally, Iraq was already one of the most modernized of the Arab states, with an unusually high pool of educated people, and therefore had a greater than normal chance to develop some sort of democracy, which would have a galvanizing affect on reform in the region.