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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (126973)	7/23/2005 12:07:38 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793809

I am less convinced that he would have supported the war in Iraq. At the time of the Mesopotamia campaign in 1917, Churchill had seen the British Army march on Baghdad to take control of the oilfields and topple a brutal regime, only to become embroiled in a bloody quagmire. Churchill also knew that the “highest moral value” attaches to striking the second blow, to responding to provocation: he would not, I believe, have started a pre-emptive war. No, Churchill would have finished the business in 1991, and not left Saddam in power. Considering that Churchill was Colonial Secretary of the British government that DID go into Mesopomtamia in 1917, this is a rather extraordinary conclusion. Furthermore, Britain didn't get bogged down in a "quagmire"; they put down the rebellion and installed a Hashemite king. One can argue that the victory was Pyrrhic, but it definitely doesn't qualify as a "quagmire", having a decisive conclusion.