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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (155702)	1/9/2005 2:43:19 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

<the main motivations: reshaping the Middle East> If Bush had gone to Congress to ask for blanket approval to invade Iraq for the purpose of reshaping the Middle East they would have voted no and then passed a motion calling for a psychiatric examination of Karl Rove.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (155702)	1/9/2005 3:13:42 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, why would it matter if Saddam didn't have sanctions against him and the no-fly zones were canceled and he was back as King Kong of Iraq, just like the bosses of Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, half of Africa, Libya, Vietnam, Cuba and so on? Over the decades there have been any number of totalitarian murderous dictators, some of whom, including Saddam, have been good mates of the USA. He was funding Palestinian suicide bomber families [allegedly]. He harboured Abu Nidal [until he decided to kill him]. He wanted to have as good a bunch of weaponry as he could possibly get; so what? So do most others. China is loaded up with noocular bombs and so is Russia but the USA hasn't gone after them. Nor North Korea, nor Pakistan [which was the primary supporter of the Taleban who enabled Osama to set up shop as a good buddy]. What was particularly egregious about Saddam? I've already explained that the primary purpose of sanctions was to keep Iraq's oil off the market to maintain profitability of many oil and energy interests. It wasn't to prevent weapons of mass destruction being built. Neither was it to stop him getting too big and tough. He already wasn't big and tough enough to take on Iran, even with USA help, let alone others such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Israel with the USA looming over their shoulders. Saddam didn't have a choice in the sanctions. He was getting them good and hard whether he liked it or not, no matter what he did. He knew that. The USA was sending spies into Iraq under cover of UN inspections and of course Saddam didn't want them snooping around, setting up targets, whatever else, and he wanted to rebuild his power as much as he could. So of course he did what he could to disrupt the USA/UN intrusion. His whole life is confrontation - it's what he does. It's what he is. See him in court. Still at it. Zero power but still at it. $200 billion in sanctions penalties eh? Who made those sales instead of Saddam? That must have helped a few bottom lines for a few years. See what I mean? <Your list leaves of the main motivations: reshaping the Middle East so it connects to the rest of the world, > Hmmm. I have to take that with a pinch of salt. Saddam was already well-connected and what's wrong with oil sales as a means of connection? I wonder if Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Yemen etc are to be "re-shaped" too. I don't see how the insurgency could be cut off before it began. If Saddam's Iraq was still intact, with full oil sales and sovereignty restored, I don't see that there would have been all that much of a problem [for those not stuck in Iraq]. He would have continued to fund various terrorist acts against Israel and would have got what military power rebuilt that he could, including nukes from Pakistan if he could. As I've said all along, I'm quite happy if the USA and COW wants to replace Saddam. I don't see why his gang should enjoy the oil profits any more than anyone else and he was a LOT less ethical than the USA Empire. American soldiers are prosecuted for tormenting prisoners of war. Saddam's gangs used the finest in English medieval torture and were NOT prosecuted. Even a mercy killing was prosecuted by the USA [the young Iraqi who had been working on a rubbish truck attacked by USA troops by mistake]. My preference was for a reconstituted UN to run the place and own the oil, but Utopia wasn't ready at the time. Plan B isn't all that bad. Mqurice

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (155702)	1/9/2005 5:27:41 AM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 281500

The end result would have been the same. People that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. BTW, 14 more innocent people including 7 children and 4 women were murdered by Bush today: Message 20930829

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (155702)	1/9/2005 8:39:34 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<Sanctions were falling apart fast> With no WMDs and no active WMD programs, all that was left for Saddam to do was to do a proper accounting of destroyed WMD. If Saddam had complied with the UN (assuming the records existed), then there would be no further justification for sanctions and they would indeed likely to have been lifted -- ending the suffering of the Iraqi people at least in terms of the crushing impact of the sanctions. In your expressed view, lifting sanctions was unacceptable and our invasion was in part a way to make sure that did not happen. If the UN set conditions and Iraq met those conditions, there is no legitimate reason to either maintain sanctions much less to invade Iraq.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (155702)	1/9/2005 11:30:08 AM
From: neolib	Respond to of 281500

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. For pride. Or possibly something called honor. The first Gulf war, the decade + of sanctions, the second Gulf war, and the current insurgency are largely about pride, and the utter failure of USA leaders and diplomats understanding and use of that as a tool. And this is an absolutely classic example of such thinking. 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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (155702)	1/9/2005 4:52:42 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Saddam paid about $200 billion in sanctions penalties for -- nothing? a bluff? Would you believe it? On the one hand, you say Saddam was suffering under sanctions by paying "$200 billion"; in other posts, you say how corrupted and compromised the sanctions were, and that Saddam was making billions off of it under the table. Which is it? Or does it depend on what point you want to make in that particular post? I am willing to believe that Saddam was cheating on cheating. I am also willing to believe that it was one of those "open secrets" that happen so often when huge sums of money are involved. I await the Volker report before drawing any real conclusions though.