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: TimF who wrote (27719)	4/29/2002 2:57:40 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We have about 20% of the worlds gross production, and maybe 30 to 40% of the world's military power. I don't know how you'd measure military power, exactly, but if it's related to spending then the numbers quoted from Bush's last spending bid would mean the US is paying more for its military than the next 15 military powers... combined. Of course, it depends how that money is being spent - I believe other countries still have more soldiers, for example, rather than the expensive high-tech stuff - but I'd say this argues fairly overwhelming dominance. Maybe the technology is even making this dominance stronger. The problem with using it is that US citizens, being among the richest people on the planet, would also have the most to lose in the event of war... On the inspection issue... what currently separates the stances of Iraq and Israel? The latter has a more aggressive government, is conducting its own little atrocities against minorities within its borders, sends out death squads, and definitely has WMD... oh, and is refusing inspection. Iraq was a US (and Western) ally only 15 years ago, too. Democracy alone doth not an angel make.

To: TimF who wrote (27719)	4/29/2002 3:14:48 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> The US is accounts for much less of the percentage of total world economic power now than it did at the end of WW2. If you doubt this, I suppose I could dig up some links. I would guess that our percentage of world military power is also down, unless we're significantly more militarized than average. We are more militarized then most other countries. We have about 20% of the worlds gross production, and maybe 30 to 40% of the world's military power. Not to mention the fact that the other industrialized economies of the world were pretty much smashed flat at the end of the WWII -- France, Germany, Russia, Japan, etc. This creates a quite unrepresentative set of percentages.

To: TimF who wrote (27719)	4/29/2002 6:34:12 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi twfowler; Re: "The US isn't going to face a world war for invading Iraq. We may face hostile words and less cooperation and friendliness from the rest of the world for awhile but that's about it. We aren't going to face a coalition of the rest of the world against us, or even the Middle East against us." ... The Arab leaders welcomed statements by Iraq to respect the independence, sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Kuwait in a way that leads to avoidance of all that can cause the reoccurrence of the events of 1990. They called for the adoption of policies leading to the achievement of this within a framework of good will and good neighborly relations. In this context, the Arab leaders drew the attention to the importance of ending the media campaigns and negative statements in preparation for creating a positive atmosphere to reassure the two countries of the adherence to the principles of good neighborliness and non-interference in internal affairs. The Arab leaders demanded respect for the independence, sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Iraq. They demanded Iraq should cooperate in finding a quick and final solution to the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners and hostages and return properties in accordance with the relevant international resolutions and Kuwait's cooperation on Iraq's information regarding its missing people through the international Red Cross committee. The Arab leaders welcomed the resumption of dialogue between Iraq and the United Nations which has started in an positive and constructive atmosphere to complete the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions. The declaration demanded the lifting of sanctions imposed on Iraq and an end to the sufferings of its people to ensure stability and security in the region. It rejected the threat of aggression against some Arab countries particularly Iraq, stressing absolute rejection of striking Iraq or threatening the security and peace of any Arab country, considering that as a threat to the national security of all Arab countries. ... saudinf.com ... The summit, that saw the first public embrace between the Saudi Crown Prince and Iraq's Deputy President Izzat Ibrahim in the one hand and a shake hand between Iraqi and Kuwait delegations heads on the other, also approved an agreement between Iraq and Kuwait, paving the way for a landmark normalisation between them since the 1990-91 Persian Gulf crisis. The Beirut Declaration "welcomed Iraq's confirmation to respect the independence, sovereignty and security of the State of Kuwait and guarantee its safety and unity to avoid anything that might cause a repetition of what happened in 1990", a reference to Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, resulting in the US-led "international" attack on Iraq. ... iran-press-service.com The US war on terrorism requires the assistance of the Arab states. Attacking Iraq will at the very least eliminate that assistance. At worst, it will result in a full scale war across the Middle East, us against them. Afghanistan was easy. Afghanistan had no border states friendly to it. Iraq during the Gulf War had no buddies. The neighboring states were on our side. Now they're not. It's not the same situation. If Iraq attacks another country (Israel, Kuwait or Iran, I suppose), then we can get attack them back. In the absence of that sort of aggression, we aren't going to get allies to help us here. The last thing we want to do is to attack Iraq and then have to put up with 20 years of warfare against guerillas infiltrating from 4000 miles of border. Iraq makes Vietnam look easy. Again, the reason Afghanistan and the first Gulf War were easy was because we had the assistance of the neighboring states. The reason that Vietnam and Korea were hard was because we didn't. This is very simple. What we talk about here has no effect on foreign policy. But from the diplomatic and military situation, it is obvious that the US will not invade. The US may make some bombing raids, but to topple Saddam is likely to require a full blown invasion. This isn't going to happen because the US government isn't run by fascists like Hitler nor is it a monarchy like the Hapsburgs. Democracies don't start wars until the odds are extremely in their favor. The US got into Vietnam the same way that you boil a live frog. At first it seemed like the odds were in the US' favor. Being a pariah nation is not an option for the US. Our economy relies on our ability to trade. We are not going to go down with Israel against the world. -- Carl

To: TimF who wrote (27719)	4/29/2002 6:43:01 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi twfowler; Re: "We are more militarized then most other countries. We have about 20% of the worlds gross production, and maybe 30 to 40% of the world's military power." Instead of "power" the word you're looking for is "expenditures", which is quite another thing. It costs the US hundreds of thousands of dollars to destroy a pick-up truck that costs $1500 with four guys in it with another $1000 worth of rifles and maybe $2000 worth of RPGs. So while we have maybe 40% of the world's expenditure in weapons, in terms of warfare our capability is a lot lower. Maybe 5 or 10%. That's the largest chunk of power in the world, but it is not overwhelming. Re: "An argument could be made that it was never a legitimate excuse, but if it was, then IMO it still is." Excuses are only legitimate to the extent that you can sell them overseas. That is, what we think is legitimate doesn't matter. Every country is self-righteous with regard to its own actions, at least until they have their nose fully rubbed into it. From the perspective of real politics, legitimacy is obtained from the international community. The international community says we shouldn't attack Iraq. Note that this is in complete distinction to what the International community said, overall, with regard to our war in Afghanistan and the first Gulf War. While there was some complaints with both, the fact is that the EU was with us in Afghanistan, and most of the world was with us in the first Gulf War. -- Carl