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: cnyndwllr who wrote (188090)	6/2/2006 3:46:30 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"The devil we knew was much preferable to the devil we're seeing now. " Yee Haw! Ed In other words, your answer to his question is 'yes' ... revealing much about your own ethics today, eh Ed? Its the ol' select the lesser evil to be on your side philosophy, that I explained to you earlier. Like I said "its the IN thing." You're very 'IN' Ed, congrats. Best Regards, Gem

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (188090)	6/2/2006 4:00:12 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We'd have been better off letting events take their own slower, internal course in Iraq Not to spoil your 'grass is always greener' scenario there, but the highest probability for Iraq was Saddam getting rid of sanctions entirely (thanks to his buddies the Russians and French and all the bribes he was paying them), an end to containment, an end to the no-fly zones (which were done unilaterally w/o UN approval, btw), and Saddam generally left free to behave as he wished. According to his track record, that meant invading something. Once the no-fly zones were removed, the only question was which direction, Shia or Kurd? Probably Kurd, they were the bigger threat. And all his scientists would have been digging up their rose gardens for the stuff they buried under instructions. So another 50,000 or so would probably have died in the ensuing suppression of Kurdistan. But Americans wouldn't have killed them, so that would have been okay I guess.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (188090)	6/2/2006 6:48:59 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 281500

On the one hand, we had Saddam Hussein contained in Iraq slowly losing his grip Your evidence to back that statement is ...? Or do you think that evidence is a useless impediment and unfair requirement? On a the other hand, we now have a sudden regional upheaval throughout the entire middle east, the loss of thousands of American lives, the maiming of thousands of American soldiers, hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars from our treasury expended with no end in sight Sounds like Europe after WW2, doesn't it? Sure is mess now isn't it? the religious right in this country is talking about Armageddon The Religious Right hs been talking about Armageddon since The Book Of Revelations. So what? Know who Cotton and Increase Mather were and when they lived and what THEY talked about? "Prophecies of doom are nothing new." -- Edward Teller abhota.info AND IT'S ALL GETTING WORSE, NOT BETTER. Yeah. And it was getting worse in 1700 too. If you could have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and everything else had remaining neutral then, yes, it would have been good to have him gone. But that didn't happen, did it? Clever. Now name me a war without upheaval. The devil we knew was much preferable to the devil we're seeing now. You SURE about that? One thing that has become clear to rogue states is that if they provide safe harbor to those who would attack the West, there is price to be paid. We'd have been better off letting events take their own slower, internal course in Iraq and then to have stood with the world if things had gotten out of hand. What makes you think they wouldn't have gotten out of hand anyway? Remember Khaddfi? Remember what got him out of the terrorism business? It was a nearly successful assassination attempt by the US with British help. With the arrogance of power we cowboyed it up, fired off our sixguns and now the stampede's run over the chuck wagon, killed the night herders and about to trample the women and children in town. Yee Haw! Ed Under the terms of the Versailles Treaty, the Allies, mainly France and Britain at the time, had the right to intervene militarily in Germany if certain events occurred. One was the development of a German Air Force. Another was German military occupation of the Rhineland and Ruhr. When those events occurred, the Allies did nothing. The man who ordered those events was Adolph Hitler. I think you'd best go study some history, then give some thought to what you find.