Formerly About Applied Materials 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 : Formerly About Applied Materials

AMAT 252.25

+0.9%

Nov 28 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: runes	3/5/2003 11:58:46 AM
	Read Replies (3) of 70976

IS there a middle ground on Iraq? I was watching NIghtline last night which was run as a forum between the pro and anti positions. Of course the debate fell in the ploarized "War is the only solution, inspections don't work" vs the conglomerate of "give inspections a chance, the risks of a war and it's aftermath are too high". And, honestly, both sides were short on evidence and long on speculation and hyperbole. So it dawns on me that what is missing in all of this debate is an effort to find a middle ground. So let me propose this as one possibility - A staged approach to disarmament and reconstruction of Iraq - The main idea is that 2/3rds of Iraq can probably be occupied and set up with a provisional government with relative ease - the Kurds in the North and the Shia in the South. The key to this approach is that we announce up front that - 1)Saddam is in breach of the UN resolutions. That, even if inspections did "disarm" him, he would maintain the know-how for WMD and would continue to be a threat in the future. 2) That an all out war, while producing the most certain outcome, would also be the most destructive solution. So the goal would be to continue to increase the pressure on Saddam by denying him a large part of his economic capability while moving the military threat to his doorstep. This would be combined with a standing offer of asylum in the hopes that we can convince him to go quietly. 3) That we then use this to try and convince the opposing countries to either support us or, at least, to abstain from opposing us. The key benefits of this approach are - 1) We stand a better chance of getting support for a partial occupation with the stated goal of forcing Saddam out. (by choice or by a coup). 2) We will (hopefully) be able to show a viable provisional government under UN auspices. Rather than a US military "bootprint". And we will have a better assessment of how difficult it will be to keep Iraq in one piece. 3) It has a better chance of resolving the issue in a humane and controlled manner. 4) If the final war becomes inevitable we will be in a better position for a surpise focused strike rather than days of prolonged bombardment. The question to the thread is - does this really seem viable or am I just engaged in wishfulll thinking. (I already concede that expecting Bush to change horses is wishfull thinking.) Any takers?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next