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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (56207)	7/26/2004 10:59:26 AM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794048

The fact is, that Dictators usually do not get swept out of power by an uprising from the masses - unless they actually were puppets who lost their masters. They tend to stick around despite sanctions or travel restrictions, or the hand wringing of the world community. Franco died in power, of old age, and so (most likely) will Castro. Lets look at those who have committed genocide in the 20th Century: Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Hitler (who by the way, probably wouldn't have been judged an immediate threat to America either), were forced from power only by foreign troops. Why do you care about the Sudan? How is the genocide in the Sudan any worse or different than the genocides committed by Saddam? The UN Security Council's stand on the Sudan, is no different than Iraq. This means that any action in the Sudan, would encounter opposition from the Russians, Chinese and French. Saddam was responsible for the deaths of millions of people (maybe 3 million). As far as Iran goes, the country is probably too large for the United States to occupy - larger land mass and three times the population of Iraq. re:" The problem of dealing with Saddam was a subset of a larger problem: the need to develop a new global “rule set”, to use the Barnett expression, capable of confronting the linked problems of dictatorships, failed states, and terrorism. We backed away from that challenge – which would, like most important tasks, have been difficult – and based our moves on short term domestic political considerations. We rushed when there was no imperative need for immediate action, and no we are dithering in the Sudan, where there is real need of immediate action, and in Iran, where the stakes are higher than they ever were in Iraq."

To: Dayuhan who wrote (56207)	7/26/2004 2:15:20 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794048

the need to develop a new global “rule set”, to use the Barnett expression, capable of confronting the linked problems of dictatorships, failed states, and terrorism. We backed away from that challenge – which would, like most important tasks, have been difficult – and based our moves on short term domestic political considerations. I'm not at all sure what a new 'rule set' means in practice. It seems to me that the state-sponsors of terrorism are still the largest 'hanging fruit' under any rule set, since they provide what non-state actors cannot make for themselves - safe havens. And frankly, I find the idea that Bush attacked Iraq for short-term political gain absurd. What did he gain from it? Was 80% of the country demanding a war? Was it an easy use of his political capital? Has the past year been easy for him politically? No to all these questions. Why is it so difficult for you to believe that Bush and Blair believed, based on their best intelligence, that Saddam planned to attack the US via terrorist agents and was developing WMDs which he might give to them, and that containment was failing? (an assemssement that nobody disputed, before the war, btw) I'll go read your article; anybody who argues that containment was a success in light of what we now know about the Oil for Food scam has quite a row to hoe.