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: epicure who wrote (228201)	4/22/2007 8:00:50 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Since we never had a triumphant rearmed Saddam and I think it extremely unlikely we would have, I don't see the point, Nadine. You can say sanctions would have collapsed and he would have gotten nukes, but I can say they would not have, and he would not have gotten nukes. I will say that he would have remained a bullwark to Iranian aggression, and Al Qaeda expansionism. I can point to existing trends of the sanctions collapsine, in 2001 - 2003, and add in what we now know about Saddam's regime and the extent of UN complicity in the Oil for Food bribe scheme. Not to mention AQ Khan's Sam's Club for Nukes - none of which we would know if Saddam were still in power. You can argue that because it didn't happen in 2001 or 2002, everything would have remained the same, Saddam in a box, yada yada. This is not argument, it is a refusal to think about things. That the current state is going badly may be evidence for someone who weighs the pros and cons to say that on balance, the war was a bad idea, or was a good idea but only if certain mistakes were avoided. It is NOT evidence for pretending that everything was just fine and stable before the war, and Bush & co only went to war because they are evil warmongers who like war.