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 (148496)	10/21/2004 1:31:28 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<Iraq was more doable and was to set an example for the other two.> Iraq was doable? What did we do, other than pin down our own troops in an irrelevant shooting gallery and make Iraq into a haven and recruiting area for terrorism? Set an example for what? For how incapable we are of conducting even a relatively simply invasion and occupation? Setting an example of how far we can go to isolate ourselves from world opinion and allies?

To: michael97123 who wrote (148496)	10/21/2004 3:07:57 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Iraq was more doable Nya nya nya, we can pick on the weakling. The weakling that had no air force. The weakling that had no control over much of its own air space (no go zones) The weakling that had most of its heavy armour destroyed in 1991, never to be replaced. The weakling that had sanctions working against it, so that it could not effectively re-arm in any significant way. Yup, it was doable. That was never in question. and was to set an example for the other two. Some example. We've shown them that they need be better equipped than the blown apart Iraqi army. But its worse than that... As I've said before, as a conservative I find it very ironic to find myself agreeing with recent comments by Fmr. Sec State Madeline Albright who said "we've shown them that we only attack states known not to have the atomic bomb". Some disincentive for Iran then. Or North Korea. Or any country with the funds and ability. There was not alternative solution in iraq at that time except nonsense about containement which the Dulfer report makes clear. No, it doesn't make that clear at all -- that is opinion, not fact. The Duelfer report makes clear that - Iraq never reconstituted its nuclear WMD programs - Iraq never reconstituted its chemical warfare WMD programs - Iraq never reconstituted its biological warfare WMD programs It doesn't get any more plain than that -- containment was working. All the other noise about smuggling bits and pieces and "intent" is minor, conjecture, and yes, common sense. Of course Saddam wanted to be a big bad meanie again. But he wasn't. Had no ability to. He was, in effect, neutered. Impotent. And probably a little insane too. The UN scandal and the side deals with iraq by some euros/business should make that clear. Nothing proven yet but even still, none of this invalidates the simple facts: - Iraq never reconstituted its nuclear WMD programs - Iraq never reconstituted its chemical warfare WMD programs - Iraq never reconstituted its biological warfare WMD programs You want proven cases of dealing with the Enemy? Look at Haliburton.