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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (2263)	11/16/2005 4:12:27 PM
From: Geoff Altman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (712902) 11/15/2005 1:08:04 AM From: Peter Dierks Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 713565 "I didn't want to turn it into a term paper." Always a temptation when you get your teeth into a good subject. A vibrant Democracy in the Middle East would draw people and financial resources from surrounding countries. If people in the Middle East could see what success from self sufficiency is like, they will want and demand freedom themselves. "This was the end point I was trying to get to. I believe that this was the goal that the president had in mind." Thanks! I hope you are correct. I would hate to think he was just bent on causing mayhem and massive loss of life. "entering Iraq was the best course of action possible, still is and is the best hope for the entire region through the influence of a successful democracy." This may be why DemoLibs are hell bent on causing failure in Iraq. They know that if President Bush succeeds, it will point out the irrelevance of the anti American Democrat party and their media allies. "It's always been the case that as tyrants tighten their grip on a society they cull it. Anyone with the guts to try to remove the tyrant will themselves be removed permanently. The populous living in complete fear was a prerequisite of Saddam’s reign. That's why we're having so much trouble empowering the majority of the populace. We are making headway but this is not something that the US can afford to change horses in midstream on." It has been that way for a couple thousand years in the whole region. The extent that evolution can cause a bifurcation of personalities in that time, it may have been done. You would have cowards and tyrannical maniacs as the dominant personalities. The attempt to unseat Chalabi was disastrous. He cannot openly fight against us, but he will never trust America again. He will run along with us when it is convenient, but will not rely upon us for anything. It is impossible to know yet, what the timeframe for Iraqi elf determination is likely to be. A free Iraq can be a gleaming beacon of light for the region.

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (2263)	11/16/2005 10:58:47 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

"the WMD was valid but the controversy that was stirred up about them drowned out that entering Iraq was the best course of action possible, still is and is the best hope for the entire region through the influence of a successful democracy." The other thing to remember is the moral hazard from moving goals. A certain political party supported the removal of Saddam prior to the November 2002 midterm elections, but immediately after the election started changing their tune. They all believed he had WMDs, now they claim he did not have WMDs. They ignore the nearly ton of enriched Uranium removed from Iraq by the US, and say there were no WMDs. They ignore the fact that Saddam gassed hundreds of thousands of Kurds with WMDs and then say there were no WMDs. They ignore the advanced centrifuges developed and carefully stored for the enrichment of Uranium and say there were no WMDs. They ignore the rocket casings that he had stored with empty casings designed to distribute chemical and biological weapons and say there were no WMDs. Of those people who make the claim, I say they are either manipulated by partisan or distorters of the truth. So whether WMDs are relevant of not, is only part of the question. The changing goals of what defines WMDs is also relevant.