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: michael97123 who wrote (198368)	8/21/2006 1:28:47 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush asked if anyone thinks we would have been better off with saddam in power. I dont know the answer but am beginning to believe it couldnt be much worse. Mike Well, its a few thousand Americans dead and almost 20,000 Americans wounded, a few hundred billion $ later, 10s, plausibly over 100,000 Iraq dead and countless wounded later--but of course, some will tell you that Geez, in three years, how many die on American roads, and how many would Saddam have killed in that time? Bush and Krystol are both still using the "Would we have been better off with Saddam?" line. As though the answer is self evidently "No." And they allow only two choices--Evil Saddam vs. No Saddam. But those aren't the only two choices. Saddam was boxed in. And, while undoubtedly Bush and Krystol supporters will dismiss what I am about to say as "fantasy" (as though they haven't indulged in numerous fantasies over the past 4 years), he could have been swayed and "reasoned" with, IMHO--given choices that would have been hard for him to say No to under the circumstances (though not by such unimaginative and diplomatically stupid people as exist in the Bush administration). But nevermind, that is all hypothethical. Now these clever people who have messed things up in the mideast so much that there are not only no half decent choices, there are no quarter decent, non humiliating choices, and they have the audacity to blame Democrats and others for "not having a plan," for only being naysayers. But when any plan is presented--and any plan that is explicit will have bad consequences at this point--they of course sneer that the plan has bad consequences. Like, DUH! And Americans are so shocked and awed by our current foreign policy to "Stay the course" that we can't see that that plan has the same or worse horrendous consequences that the alternate plans put forward do. These Bush people are like geniuses all right.

To: michael97123 who wrote (198368)	8/21/2006 2:23:33 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

But i also know that it is not a good thing to put american troops in harms way in a situation that strikes me as virtually hopeless at this time. Many struggles have been seen as "hopeless" in the past. Hell, we were taking on two of the most powerful nations on the planet simultaneously during WWII, as well as producing arms for the Brits and Soviets. And we didn't have a real victory until Midway, and that was only one that was, at the time, considered a defensive victory that merely held back the tide of the Japanese expansion. The campaign in Italy was also a "quagmire" that many generals were strongly against becoming involved in. They felt we should have used those troops for a cross-channel attack in 1943 and that the surrender of Italy was insufficient reason to divert such resources there. I'm pretty confident that while US forces are in Iraq, there won't be a civil war. However, so long as Ahmadinejad and Syria have combined forces to maintain instability in Iraq, there will be some form of insurgency. Both of those countries, as in Lebanon, have an interest in distracting our attention from focusing upon them. And yes.. it could be far worse, IMO. Saddam had learned his lesson from Desert Storm. Given a similar opportunity where US attention was not focused upon him, he'd be very occupied trying to get some "payback" against the Kuwaitis, Saudis, and Iranians. His honor and credibility demanded that he do so. Iraq, for the most part, is fairly stable. There is Baghdad and the Anbar province that still remain unruly (and some instability in Diyala province), but most of the country is getting on with business and daily life. But we don't see that reported in the news because most reporters are stationed in Baghdad and don't often get out of the city. Hawk