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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve dietrich who wrote (601995)	8/9/2004 7:15:31 PM
From: Enam Luf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I agree that iraq wasn't much of a threat before and that the invasion was not morally justified. However, i think that we are safer at home as a result. Here's why: -I don't believe that Iraqi's have the same goals and mindset as AQ and no matter how much they fight in their homeland, I don't think that the Iraqi people are likely to launch suicide missions on the US homeland. -violence can now be directed at our troops and at iraqis rather than US civilians. -a full time presence in Iraq enables better intelligence gathering. our intelligence was very thin prior to the invasion, and it would have taken years to develop. -it has alleviated the pressure to remove US troops from Saudi Arabia. -"Beating the grass to startle the snakes." The more disruption and movement we create in terrorist networks, the easier they are to detect and hunt down. it is only when things are settled that they can disappear into the background. -it might actually make us safer if the arabic world believes Bush is a trigger happy nutcase. ("it is better to be feared than loved" - Machiavelli). this has been a proven deterrent in the past (Reagan, China-Taiwan) -holding arab states responsible for the "stateless" terrorist in their borders is probably the only way to get arab countries to crack down at home. some (pakistan, saudi arabia) are so dependent on the support of the US to maintain power that 100% cooperation is all but guaranteed (privately, if not publicly). these are the arguments against us being safer -Our continued presence in Iraq may piss off more muslims and create a bigger terrorist threat. -Potential for unstable power vacuum after we leave. -Potential for increasingly unified opposition to US by arab nations (Iran?) -Potential overthrow of Saud family. -Distraction and cost of overseas war may make us blind to threats at home or unable to adequately fund proper defense mechanisms. -Loss of cooperation from european allies may hinder our ability to gather info and may cost us leverage in other arenas. I think that the argument for is stronger. However, once you start down that road, backing off would create a power vacuum that could put us at increased risk. The biggest question that I have is how long we can afford to keep up the pressure.