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.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (43976)2/9/2002 5:28:13 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
I'm fully invested in hitting "terrorists with global reach and the states that support them."

Does this include a) the Palestinians, and b) the IRA?

Or is it okay for these groups to inflict terror as long as it isn't on US populations?



To: Lane3 who wrote (43976)2/9/2002 11:36:56 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Good question... and a difficult one. I do think that there is a lot to be gained from eliminating hostile oppressive governments that support terrorism but its risky as well. The risk isn't so much that someone would defeat us in battle (if we plan and prepare wisely its unlikely that any of the "axis of evil" states could defeat us in a straight out battle, but we have to think carefully about what is going to happen to these countries if we do go in and smash the power of the current government. Also there is the secondary consideration of having much of the world views us as arrogant or angry and dangerous, lashing out at everyone rather then just people or governments connected to the 9/11 attack or other terrorist attacks. And of course there is the suffering that a war could cause. For example North Korea is the most militarily powerful of the three countries that Bush said where part of the "axis of evil", and it is also an economic basket case. If we are going to take it on we can win but how much damage will we do to the North in the process and also how much damage might the North do to the South, and what would China do?

If we are going to go after any of those countries Iraq makes the most sense. We have the best pretext in this case (they are not following the cease fire rules anymore so the cease fire could be canceled). They definitely have supported terrorism and taking out Saddam would encourage others to not mess around in the Middle East or support terrorism. However it would be a lot more difficult without Saudi bases and I'm not sure that the Saudi royal family would want to get involved. Also what would happen to post war Iraq is a big question. Would some other dictator take Saddam's place (perhaps as we are gathering forces they might show Sadam's head on a pike and say "see you don't have to invade anymore"), or would the country split in to three or more pieces. The three pieces would seem to be a "Kurdistan" in the north (which none of the neighboring countries including our ally Turkey wants), a Sunni state around Baghdad and a Shite state in the South (which Saudi may not like). Also while the action might lesson state sponsorship of terrorism it might turn some people to terrorism who other wise would not have become terrorists.

To try to come to some (qualified and uncertain) conclusion, there is some justification for an attack on Iraq, and such an attack may have practical benefits, but there are a lot of risks and uncertainties and decisions to make if we are going to go in this direction. Attacks on Iran, or North Korea would be even more problematic both in terms of world opinion and in practical terms.

I don't know that I have really given any answers (let alone that they are the right answers) but I have at least examined the question. How would you react if we went to war to topple Saddam?

Tim



To: Lane3 who wrote (43976)2/11/2002 10:46:56 AM
From: Win Smith  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Funny thing about terrorism. There's this list I dug up recently, not having paid all that much attention at the time it was generated. Most of the events and incidents don't have body counts attached, but one sticks out:

1965: INDONESIA. Organize campaign of propaganda to overthrow Sukarno government, and precipitate conditions leading to massacre of more than 500,000 members of Indonesian Communist Party, in order to eliminate opposition to new Suharto government. Successful. pw1.netcom.com (that's from Appendix I, Timeline of CIA Operations , in case the internal bookmark part of the link doesn't work)

Buried elsewhere in that list are some passing references to the assassination of Lumumba and the installation of Mobutu, which certainly helped the Heart of Darkness emerge into benevolent light of Western Civilization. Given the long shadow of King Leopold's ghost, the Congolese shouldn't have expected much better.

Moral high ground is easy to claim by assertion, but sometimes the claims look a little dubious when correlated with the historical record.