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 (159570)	3/24/2005 11:24:41 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The US never installed Saddam, Orca. What a strange history you must learn. The CIA had some involvement, not much, with the Baathists coming in 1963, but that was way pre-Saddam. Saddam murdered his way to the top of the Baathist party on his own devices. After that the US dealt with him as a fair accompli. The CIA was involved in a coup that put the Baathists in power, as a hedge against the Soviets. Saddam was one of the hit men, and yes then he climbed to the top in his own bloody way. But the US found him to be a useful accompli during the war with Iran...as we helped him in that war that you mention as killing millions. Our hands are not clean. That's strange, I certainly heard enough about the million dead Iraqi children the sanctions had supposedly killed. Yes we've all heard plenty about them...especially in recent times and during the lead up to the Iraq invasion. I honestly did not know about the effect of the sanctions during the Clinton administration. It was not widely reported at the time I guess, or I was busy tending my sheep. Orca, if Iraq didn't show the uselessness of sanctions, esp. when your vaunted 'international community' choses to break them, nothing will. Sanctions have their place. In fact the Bush administration is calling for sanctions on Iran. But any strategy must be minded and clearly our interest in Iraq waned. More diplomacy could only have managed to keep Saddam in power, without the sanctions. This is the result you were rooting for, be honest about it. I was rooting for Saddam? Problem here is that you are not being honest. A bit cynical indeed. It's ok for Bush to be raising the spector of sanctions with Iran, or Korea, but somehow this is a failed approach with Iraq? Any strategy, whether it be a combination of sanctions, diplomacy or military action must be continuously guided. It must be thoroughly planned with contingencies thought about in advance. I believe we were on the right track by holding the hammer over Saddam. The inspectors were back in the country doing their job. But further than that, as I have stated now several times, we should have drawn the line in the sand and demanded human rights, and fair and free elections. We should have been working with our allies to this end, and I believe we would have had wide support if it was properly framed. We could have forced Saddam out without firing a shot. But then if he did not comply with the international demand for his ouster, then we would have had the duty to remove him militarily. We were premature in the developments that led to the war, and it has cost many lives, billions of dollars and weakened key alliances through the world. Further the war was not an effective part of the war on terror. In the poll you posted yesterday, most people agree that the Iraq war has made us more vulnerable to terror. In fact the way the war was framed, as a part of the war on terror is down right criminal in it's own right. The use of 9-11 to justify the war, and to twist the reason that we needed to do something in Iraq was devious and ingenious to say the least. The reliance on the INC and Chalabi shows just how incompetent this administration has been with respect to Iraq. Orca