SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (8179)11/29/2004 11:39:25 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 32591
 
We were able to invade despite what the rest of the world thought, and am certain we could have kept the pressure on with more inspections, diplomatic jawboning, etc, despite the obvious corruption these long term programs entail

Just to be obvious about it, we were able to invade with few allies, but no one can keep up a sanctions regime that the rest of the developed world is happy to flout. The upshot was that we kept up the no-fly zones and got all the blame for the children Saddam killed under the sanctions, while Saddam passed out the Oil-for-Food chits, and lobbied for the end of sanctions, to good effect.

The important question is whether Iraq turns out a stable country, not run by AQ or ruled from Iran. That will be hard to tell; there will be bombs going off for a while yet. But I get the feeling that the Shia and the Kurds don't intend to be sheep for the slaughter again. If it turns out okay, even just semi-decent, then the costs and mistakes of getting there will be forgiven by history. That includes the economic costs, imo.

It's almost always wrong to focus on whether you can afford a war or not, because the answer is almost always 'no'. It's a question of what you're fighting for. We are fighting to start connecting a piece of the Middle East Gap to the Core, in Barnett's terms, because democracy with markets is really the only answer we have to Islamism. And we must answer Islamism or just wait for the next 9/11.



To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (8179)11/29/2004 5:03:50 PM
From: Scoobah  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 32591
 
Dennis, to jhave left Saddam in power was to allow Chemical Ali, and his wife to continue their research and development, of small biological weapons that were headed to the shelves of US stores.

The regime was allowing Al-Quaeda representatives to train in the North, via Ansar Al-Islam, and tha base had to be closed as well.

Unfortunately, we didnt destroy them pre-war, as the US didnt want to tip its hand too early.