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: Maurice Winn who wrote (155697)	1/9/2005 2:32:08 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 281500

So, everyone simply KNEW there were weapons of mass destruction That was more than wishfullness. Saddam paid about $200 billion in sanctions penalties for -- nothing? a bluff? Would you believe it? Neither did the intelligence services of every major country, especially considering his track record. Your list leaves of the main motivations: reshaping the Middle East so it connects to the rest of the world, and doesn't just remain a gas station pumping out oil and terror. to prevent a triumphant Saddam Hussein from reclaiming his place at the head of the biggest Arab power. Knowing what they know now, they would absolutely NOT have started the war. I absolutely disagree. They would have waged it differently. They would have laid plans to cut off the insurgency before it began. But they would have gone forward, because the other options looked no better. Sanctions were falling apart fast.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (155697)	1/9/2005 10:47:30 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Excellent post. Do you actually think Bush & Co. wanted this: Keeping oil prices and oil and energy industry profits high [by keeping Saddam's oil off the market] I agree with the profits, but high oil prices are not helping Bush. BTW, I think high oil prices are the best way to disentagle the West from the ME. Stable high prices will allows the economic development of replacements. Heck, the market cap of the successful companies replacing oil might solve the USA SS problems <vbg> Just think, the "stability premium" resulting from kicking oil (and associated rich tyrants) out should conservatively allow a doubling of P/E for stocks across the board, so we'd all be suddenly richer! Dow 50,000 here we come!

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (155697)	1/9/2005 11:09:06 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Terrific post Maurice. If Condi is not confirmed you want to shoot for Secy State? Of course i dont agree with it all, but it does add a healthy dose of realism to the debate. Regarding the debate between you and Nadine, i think it an open question on whether we would have used a different plan in iraq or not attacked at all. I think her addition to your list about transformation of the mideast is something you need to consider. Idealism some times is in line with realism. I dont get the keep oil off the markets to keep oil prices as high as an admin goal. You need to expand on this a bit. At times i look at the world as you do. I might be better off returning to my cynicism and a way from my idealism. Just like vietnam i think this war was as much spawned as much by idealism as it was by the more material, balance of power items you list. Keep posting Mqurice. mike

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (155697)	1/9/2005 11:19:50 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

MQ, PS IF you use your list of the reasons for war as assumptions + add nadines political reshaping of the mideast which is certainly a neocon goal; could you come up with better policy options for the US in the post iraqi election period? I have proposed the declare victory, remove troops to shiaa and kurd areas, help the north and south fight any civil war brought to them by baathists and osama terrorists, and allow the triangle to settle the future, using force. I have suggested that if we can prevent expansion of civil war into a shiaa/sunni struggle, the terrorists and nationalists in the triangle would end up fighting each other, especially because jihadists are mostly foreigners and that without the common US enemy to fight they would fight each other eventually. That all hinges on whether we can contain the civil war within the war between shiaa and sunni, kurd and arab. What do you think? mike

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (155697)	1/9/2005 1:32:55 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Freedom and democracy are fig-leaves. It's really: Revenge against Saddam for allegedly inciting an attack on the Bush family and for 911 on a tenuous collective guilt basis. Maintaining oil supplies into the USA oil system. Strategic military positioning in the oil fields of the Middle East. Alliance with Israel. Geopolitical balance against Russia/China and Europe and in a geographically important area. Dislike of Saddam who has funded terrorist activities. Defence against the risk of noocular and other weapons. Keeping oil prices and oil and energy industry profits high [by keeping Saddam's oil off the market]. Military training [use it or lose it] and testing. Demonstration of military prowess. This list might not be exhaustive. One of your better posts, and one with which, having said more or less the same thing previously, I wholly agree. I might have, however, not have listed the reasons in the order you chose.