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: stockman_scott who wrote (35328)	7/30/2002 3:08:39 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Scott....look at this piece again.....Hopefully, there will be wise heads that prevail on this Hussein menace... What do the wise folks here think should happen? Maybe Hussein will hit Europe first. Then what? Filling In the Blanks on Iraq The New York Times Lead Editorial 7/30/02 With the Bush administration openly threatening to overthrow Saddam Hussein, a public airing of the pros and cons of intervention is long overdue. Thanks to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has planned hearings about Iraq this week, that national discussion may finally commence. The senators will hear from a wide variety of experts on three crucial themes ? the nature and urgency of the threat from Iraq, the range of possible American policy responses, and the consequences and responsibilities that are likely to flow from a potential military victory. War with Baghdad would be a major national effort that should be initiated only with the widest possible understanding and support. Saddam Hussein has spent more than two decades entrenching himself in power, relying for protection on a long campaign of repression and a reliable corps of elite troops that still number more than 100,000. It has been nearly four years since his unconventional-weapons programs have been inspected. He is known to possess the ingredients for making deadly biological and nerve gas weapons and has already demonstrated the will to use such weapons against civilian populations. Any military attack would aim to shatter his command structures before he could launch an unconventional strike against American troops or on allies like Israel or Kuwait. But a quick victory cannot be guaranteed. Military action against Iraq might have a serious economic impact as well. The 1991 war to liberate Kuwait cost America and its allies $60 billion and set off an oil price spike that helped trigger a global recession. This time no Saudi financial help can be expected. Removing Mr. Hussein from power could trigger internal rivalries and possible fragmentation inside an Iraq divided between mutually suspicious Arab Sunnis, Arab Shiites and Kurds. In an effort to bridge these divides, the White House has invited a broad range of Iraqi opposition leaders to meet with State and Defense Department officials in Washington next month. Wisely, Senate Republicans have worked closely with the Democratic committee chairman, Joseph Biden, in planning this week's hearings. The White House has been similarly cooperative. Further exploration of these issues will be needed after the Senate returns from its August recess. Before any major decisions are taken, the nation needs to learn as much as it can about the available choices on Iraq and their likely consequences. nytimes.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (35328)	7/30/2002 5:53:34 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<"My view is that given all we have said as a leading world power about the necessity of regime change in Iraq," Mr. Schlesinger said, "means that our credibility would be badly damaged if that regime change did not take place."> Does Schlesinger seriously think it sensible to have a major war and kill untold people because they are worried about changing their minds? Losing face isn't such a big deal. Westerners seem excessively worried about losing face. Anyway, what credibility is he talking about? On a scale of credibility from 1 to 10, with 1 being totally believable, I think the average citizen of Earth would rate USA credibility nearer the deficit end of the scale. Deciding not to attack Saddam's system would not dent USA credibility. Mqurice

To: stockman_scott who wrote (35328)	7/30/2002 1:14:11 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

the problem with that Tyler and Stevenson piece from the Times is that it doesn't consider what the costs of not taking on Iraq now might be. That is, one of the central reasons to do it is because if we don't, then pretty soon the vast majority of the world's future energy supplies may come under the control or influence of a nuclear-armed barbarian. Very hard to price out the likelihood and potential economic costs of that scenario, but that's the other side of the story that the Times didn't explore. tb@stillundecided.com