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: Keith Feral who wrote (150068)	10/31/2004 1:57:59 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Respond to of 281500

> We had to weed out Saddam and whatever known terrorists remain in Iraq. Opinion, and false. Saddam was contained. he was of no threat to anyone. You won't be able to show any proof to the contrary... > Most people agree with removal of Saddam, though they suggest it was not essential. Sure, everyone wants to see a dictator go his way. So what? Shall we invade every dictatorship? Or only those with oil? Don't forget, the US has supported many a dictator, including Saddam Husayn. > If he was harboring terrorists with plans to attack the US, then we had sufficient cause to remove these terrorists from Iraq too. If, if, if. Saddam was contained. Prove otherwise. > Since he was known to have applied chemical weapons on minority populations in Iraq, he needed the boot. Then why didn't Ronald Reagan give Saddam the boot in 1983 when he first learned of Husayn's forces using chemical weapons? Instead, with the full knowledge of what Saddam was up to, Reagan gave him a nice letter of support, and pledged to to more to work together. The Horse of Sanctimony rides again, I see.

To: Keith Feral who wrote (150068)	11/2/2004 10:52:55 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> We had to weed out Saddam and whatever known terrorists remain in Iraq. No we did not. And even if we did, we did not have to do it when we did. >> Most people agree with removal of Saddam, though they suggest it was not essential. Pattently false. Most people agree that Saddam was a brutal thug and they would prefer he never had come to power in the first place. However this is not the same as agreeing with forcefully removing him and saying the hell with the consequences. There were many who pointed out as evil as Saddam is, he is keeping Iraq stable and we won't be able to nation build Iraq. >> The decisive vicotry against Saddam was a historical moment. I am sure it was. But the funny thing about history is that it reserves its judgement for years (or decades) to come. So It is too early to say if this historical moment was in US' benefit. >> I don't think the presence of more troops would have changed the attitude of foreign fighters in Fallujah. But it would have helped with providing security and it would have highly reduced Iraqi dissatisfaction with the war. Just as importantly, it would have removed one of the social functions for Sadr's army; providing security. >> For all I know, a victory in Fallujah will wipe out most of the lingering resistance and let stability fall back into place. How strongly do you believe this? Let's make a bet proportional to the strength of your belief on it. >> I think we have applied every conceivable resourse to the conflict. I think not. We left out any Iraqi and international force who could have helped if only we were willing to take a softer approach. >> Spies are good, but may be superflous given the state of technology. Very funny given that this position was explored by CIA for more than a decade of trying and analysis. Eventually CIA concluded nothing replaces spies...but it was rather too late. >> The US is going to maintain forces to support the Iraqi government for the indefinite future. And if you can show me a single country that has ever benefited from "an endurance battle" (as you put it) I amy accept this may be the second time. >> Bush and Cheney are very adept at the practice of guile. Only with the US public. Since they have no understanding of the enemy they are fighting, they cannot use it on him. >> Why should there be an exit strategy? So as to avoid your "endurance battle". You need to know explicitly what you are after, what you are willing to pay for it, and how much time you can spend. Otherwise, who will you judge your progress? ST