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: Sun Tzu who wrote (163400)	6/1/2005 2:46:41 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

"Sooner or later either Saddam would have died, the Iraqis would have changed the regime, " What about saddams kids, Queasy and Sleazy? You conveniently leave out what everyone took as certain succession in place in iraq at the time. Maybe you know something the rest of us dont? Please elucidate.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (163400)	6/2/2005 12:13:37 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

In what way were we interfering in Kurdish affairs beyond making sure that Saddam could not bomb them to oblivion? Aside from that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln? Who said anything about permanent? Sooner or later either Saddam would have died, the Iraqis would have changed the regime, or US would have had a capable president. Evidence for this is nil. Sooner or later Saddam would have died, and one of his sons would have taken over. If it was Qusay, the smart one, Iraq could have stayed a police state for another generation. This is like saying in 1945 that it was inevitable for Russia to get liberated because Stalin was going to die sometime or other. Great, it only took another 45 years, wonderful planning. Because in the 40s US took the position that even if some German generals overthrew Hitler and changed the regime, nothing short of unconditional surrender would do. Obviously nobody would overthrow his own government, no matter how bad, only to see it under foreign boots. In other words, the 6 million did not have to die if US and UK had taken more reasonable positions and encouraged internal change rather than outright subjugation. Similar thing happened in Iraq I don't know where you learned your history but this is completely ahistorical. The Allies refused less than total victory after Hitler started the war, a small detail you have overlooked, which jacked up the killing rate right there. And how you figure that a negotiated solutions with the Nazi state left free to keep the death camps running - don't forget, Hitler had elaborate plans to kill all the Poles after he got done with the Jews and Gypsies - would have decreased the number of dead just boggles the mind. Oh please! Whoever said war avoidance at all costs? Try to answer the argument presented and not the one you wish I had made. You did, by wanting both the end of sanctions and no war with Saddam. Like I said, you only get to chose from possible solutions, not the happy miracle where Saddam, his sons, and his entire security apparatus just vanished and Iraq liberated itself.