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: michael97123 who wrote (145167)	9/9/2004 9:35:30 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I dont by that NK can be contained forever. It's been nearly 50 years. Are you also going to say that those that think that NK can be contained are deluding themselves as well? Though your position is effective in dodging the question. Iraq is arab and in the middle east and wouldnt have to launch a missile to hit a western target if you get my drift. No one that has WMD [or might acquire WMD] needs a missile to hit a western target. Here's a public list. Who needs a missile to strike a western target? Tell me that US [or western] borders are secure. fas.org Whether saddam loved terrorists is immaterial. They would have served as human bombs for him and he would have gotten his revenge and possibly gained control of the Gulf which was his earlier goal. It's relevant because terrorists were nearly as much a threat to Saddam and his sectarian government as they were to the US. Saddam wasn't known for being a trusting individual. Terrorists would be far better off attempting to obtain WMD from Russia. They have some fabulous militarized weapons that are not secured that well, and given the economy in Russia, they might stand a decent chance in buying some on a black market. If you don't like Russia as a choice, how about Egypt, Iran, Syria, or Serbia. You trust them? And dont forget how could you contain iraq anyway when the euros would be resupplying him after sanctions removed. You and I seem to have a different definition of "containment". I consider "containment" to being constrained within the borders of Iraq. Removing sanctions does not equate to non-containment.

To: michael97123 who wrote (145167)	9/9/2004 10:54:23 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

From win's post: <these professionals argue that by the end of 2002 the decisions the Administration had made—and avoided making—through the course of the year had left the nation less safe, with fewer positive options. Step by step through 2002 America's war on terror became little more than its preparation for war in Iraq. Because of that shift, the United States succeeded in removing Saddam Hussein, but at this cost: The first front in the war on terror, Afghanistan, was left to fester, as attention and money were drained toward Iraq. This in turn left more havens in Afghanistan in which terrorist groups could reconstitute themselves; a resurgent opium-poppy economy to finance them; and more of the disorder and brutality the United States had hoped to eliminate. Whether or not the strong international alliance that began the assault on the Taliban might have brought real order to Afghanistan is impossible to say. It never had the chance, because America's premature withdrawal soon fractured the alliance and curtailed postwar reconstruction. Indeed, the campaign in Afghanistan was warped and limited from the start, by a pre-existing desire to save troops for Iraq. A full inventory of the costs of war in Iraq goes on. President Bush began 2002 with a warning that North Korea and Iran, not just Iraq, threatened the world because of the nuclear weapons they were developing. With the United States preoccupied by Iraq, these other two countries surged ahead. They have been playing a game of chess, or nerves, against America—and if they have not exactly won, they have advanced by several moves. Because it lost time and squandered resources, the United States now has no good options for dealing with either country. It has fewer deployable soldiers and weapons; it has less international leverage through the "soft power" of its alliances and treaties; it even has worse intelligence, because so many resources are directed toward Iraq.> Message 20501766