Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

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

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: JohnM who wrote (38679)	8/19/2002 5:36:54 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (3) of 281500

The arrangement of force was different then. Saddam had been a public US ally in the region until quite close to the time of the Kuwaiti invasion. Some have speculated that he mistook a signal from Baker to mean the US would protest loudly against a Kuwait invasion but do nothing. So he might have been susceptible to sanctions then. The authorization of force by Congress took place on January 12th. The US had already built up a half-million troops in the region....how much more of a signal could he have needed? I dont think that sanctions would have sent much of a message. It seems to me that those who were voting for sanctions were either voting for the status-quo or really believed that the sanctions themselves would work (and not work as some sort of signal). Again, considering the absolutely abysmal record of sanctions, I dont see how they could possibly have convinced Hussein to leave Kuwait. To use another example....how much good did sanctions do against Yugoslavia? cnn.com There is an argument that Saddam has been kept pent up, not a regional threat, by the sanctions and US overflights, so why not continue that until some sort of internal decay works its will. The argument then goes that the negatives associated with that path--if he has increased his supply of wmds he might use them, are less than the negatives associated with an invasion--long term US occupation that produces nothing better only a great deal more anger at us, increased instability of the friendly govts in the region, etc. Well....I think that the fact that Saddam is currently pent up has more to do with the presence of our troops in the region than with sanctions. The real question is how well our deterrent will work if he obtains a nuclear device. Would we attempt to stop a second invasion of Kuwait if the possability existed that he would use a WMD? I dont know the answer to that. It might not be worth going in but I think we should be clear about the alternative. He will eventually have a WMD. It will simply be a matter of time. Prior to 9/11 various voices had been questioning the wisdom of sanctions for quite some time. The reality is that we end up doing far more harm to the people of Iraq than to Hussein. That argument will be brought up again if the status-quo remains in place and will eventually work to end the sanctions. One other thought....I think I have a pretty good idea about the negative consequences of an invasion. How about the positive. What effect would a partly democratic Iraq (maybe patterned after Turkey?) have on the balance of power in the ME? Would it hasten the spread of democracy to other countries in the ME? Not sure about the answer to that either.... As I said before, I am really hoping that Bush brings his case to the American people and Congress. There are legitimate reasons for an invasion of Iraq (and legitimate reasons against). We shouldnt be afraid of having an actual debate on the merits of the case. Slacker

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next