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: carranza2 who wrote (18903)	2/15/2002 9:46:55 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Quite frankly, I have absolutely no idea what the administration is going to do on this one--and I don't think they do, either. My own hunch is that they won't invade, because we just don't do stuff like that without provocation. Of course, I held my tech stocks throughout the entire bubble-burst, so WTFDIK? tb@goodquestion.com

To: carranza2 who wrote (18903)	2/16/2002 12:28:11 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

How is it going to take place? Another air campaign? That strategy did not dislodge him from power. Carranza... it's about WILL, not resources or methods. The WILL to take whatever actions are necessary which result in the fall of Saddam's regime. That will did not exist in 1990. The Saudis were afraid of destabilizing Iraq to the extent that it would no longer prove an effective deterrence against Iran. It hasn't existed during the past decade, including "desert fox" (Wag the Dog, Part II). But the will clearly seems to exist amongst Bush's advisors, and probably in SA and Kuwait as well for reasons I discusses yesterday, namely that Hussein's Baathist government poses an extreme risk to the entire political structure of the royal families in the region. Bear in mind that the Baathist parties are modeled after the Nazi party, not the communists. The same brutality that Hitler's ideology embodied, live on in Iraq and Syria's political structure. But since the US may be looking to engage in a two prong "action" aimed at undermining both nations, and replacing them with more accountable governments, the local royals might be willing to sign on, so long as they perceive that the US is serious about fully carrying out those actions, and helping to clean up the resulting social "mess" that will result from the void in power. Saddam would have fallen in 1990, had we let our troops go the extra few miles to Baghdad, or even if we had been willing to support the Shiite uprising in the southern marshes. But that would have unraveled the coalition at the time. But if we're willing to "go it alone", with the support of several of our allies in the region providing bases, and fully follow through, then Saddam is going to fall. But Iran must be dealt with first, imo. The conditions of internal unrest must be fostered in order to cause that government to spend its resources and attention attempting to quell internal dissent, and not forming an "unholy alliance" with Iraq to oppose the US. After all, Iraq has only some 16 million people, whereas Iran has 70 million. But the action must be primarily a grass-roots effort, arming the local population and training them to carry out an insurrection, and supported by US airpower involved interdicting and neutralizing organized Iraqi resistance. I fully believe the Iraqi people would have rose up enmasse in 1991, had they any kind of inkling the US was planning on taking Saddam out (and I don't mean lunch.. :0) But they were looking for the key decisions that never came, which left them living in fear for another decade under this brutal regime, afraid to oppose him but hoping and praying someone would liberate them. The key is not to invade Iraq, but to help it collapse by pulling out the rotten supports that prop it up... People around the world might resist a unilateral US action aimed at invading Iraq or Iran, but who can argue against the US supporting internal groups seeking to free themselves?? This is how I believe we'll see many of these future actions carried out. Subversion of the current oppressive regime, promises of rebuilding their economies, and reintroducing these countries into the community of nations. Hawk