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: tekboy who wrote (30600)	5/24/2002 12:42:24 PM
From: Jack Hartmann	Respond to of 281500

"There are many ways in which that [regime change] could come about, only one of which is a military campaign in Iraq," one official familiar with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's thinking said yesterday. The succession problem is not so easy anymore. After the Gulf war the opposition was in a better position to run a Saddammless Iraq. Jack

To: tekboy who wrote (30600)	5/24/2002 12:42:29 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"I think all the chiefs stood shoulder-to-shoulder on this," said one officer tracking the debate, which has been intense at times. In one of the most emphatic summaries of the direction of the debate, one top general said the "Iraq hysteria" he detected last winter in some senior Bush administration officials has been diffused. So is it the opinion of the Joint Chiefs that it's okay to wait until Saddam gets nuclear weapons, it's an acceptable threat? There's really no other conclusion from an article that call's the Bush administration's stance "hysteria" and does not otherwise discuss the level of threat.

To: tekboy who wrote (30600)	5/24/2002 2:00:27 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Military Bids to Postpone Iraq Invasion Joint Chiefs See Progress In Swaying Bush, Pentagon Fascinating article.

To: tekboy who wrote (30600)	5/24/2002 3:57:22 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi tekboy; Re the article "Military Bids to Postpone Iraq Invasion" Funny that this article simply states what has been patently obvious for six months already: (1) There is no significant opposition to the Iraqi government that we can rely on. (2) Fighting the Iraqi army in Baghdad and Basra could be a bloodbath for all concerned. (Look at what happened to the Israelis in Jenin, and magnify it up to a fully built up city of millions.) (3) The US doesn't have a dog in the Iraqi neighborhood, so there's no real passion to fight there. (4) Our allies and Iraq's neighbors are against the idea so it would be difficult both militarily and diplomatically. -- Carl P.S. I feel like a broken record for repeating the above so many times already. I was pretty sure that the administration wouldn't really decide to invade Iraq, but it is nevertheless, the last few weeks, a relief to see hints that they're finally giving up on it.

To: tekboy who wrote (30600)	5/24/2002 4:24:45 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

Military Bids to Postpone Iraq Invasion Joint Chiefs See Progress In Swaying Bush, Pentagon The uniformed leaders of the U.S. military believe they have persuaded the Pentagon's civilian leadership to put off an invasion of Iraq until next year at the earliest and perhaps not to do it at all, according to senior Pentagon officials. Does something strike you as improper about this line of argument? For the military to argue that that the campaign requires more troops or a lengthy buildup, that's legitimate. But this sounds quite close to a policy argument -- we don't want to go into Iraq, period. Surely that is the business of the civil administration, not the Joint Chiefs? Who is making policy here? It almost sounds as if State and the Pentagon are in one faction, and the Bush administration in another.