SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Pastimes : AMAT Off-Topic Forum
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: willcousa who wrote (673)4/19/2002 11:40:43 AM
From: runes  Read Replies (1) of 786
 
willcousa - In that case what you are really wishing for is some kind of "weapons of mass destruction" attack.

Maybe something like anthrax - no, they would probably blame the US. After all it was our anthrax and probably a home grown terrorist that made the rounds in Washington and with the Press.

So how about a dirty bomb - few direct deaths but a lot of people living in fear of cancer? Or maybe a nasty smallpox attack - death to 10s of thousands, mass panic. That would surely motivate Europe to go after the likes of Saddam.
.....But what a terrible way to gain an ally.

Personally I prefer the present situation - a critical Europe unscarred by senseless slaughter. First because I don't like senseless slaughter - not even against those that I despise deeply. And second - I value criticism - it helps to temper emotional over-reactions.
...Case in point - Iraq. Clearly a recalcitrant nation under Saddam's leadership. And one that has been trying for weapons of mass destruction.
...On the threat side - their success has been limited at best. And most of what we fear is a combination of Saddam's bluster combined with the media's shocking what-ifs. And Saddam knows full well what the consequences of launching a Mass Destruction attack would be - if he were capable of doing so.
...On the cost side - attacking Iraq to overthrow the government would be a bloody business. Unlike Afghanistan, the core population supports Saddam. And hopes of a Northern Alliance solution were severely damaged when Bush Sr. mustered the Kurds and then hung them out to dry in Saddam's withering fire. And then there is the danger of a wider conflict - Saddam wasted no time in mending fences with Iran as soon as Bush Jr. started rattling his sabre.
...And if we were to overthrow Iraq we would end up with a destabilized country - pro-Iranian Shiites freed on the Kuwaiti border and anti-Turkish Kurds liberated on the the Turkish border. (It was Turkey's complaints that prompted Bush Sr. to betray the Kurds.)

In short - taking out Iraq is not a slam dunk. There are good reasons to believe that the costs would outweigh the benefits. And that is the European point of view.
...And the Arabian criticism - that the US should tackle the Palestinian thing first - is also valid. That conflict is real, is active, and has the potential to spiral into a regional conflict. Not to mention spawning a new round of terror attacks against the US and it's interests.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News