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: Ilaine who wrote (36300)	8/7/2002 1:04:21 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

As you say, cb, you are not a liberal, nor do you play one on TV. You raise real arguments against the Iraq campaign. Have you seen any of the arguments you raise coming out of the left-liberal camp? I don't think I have, except for a general 'war is terrible, the results of war have to be worse than no war'. Maybe I'm reading too many of scott's bloviating pundits, but I haven't seen many arguments from the left about why the neocons are overestimating the threat or America's geopolitical position would be enhanced by working with the UN. When I see thse arguments they come from the left-center (John M's "moderates"), or the center. I find it suspicious that the people (neocons) who are most adamant about attacking Iraq are also the most committed to protecting Israel. What is so difficult to understand? Neocons believe in projecting military power and building regional military alliances. It is natural for them to think that the military alliance with Israel is an asset. As I have said before, attacking Iraq now was not Israel's idea -- Israel regards Iran and Hizbullah as the more immediate threats. But once the idea was raised, all the radical Arab regimes began to use the Israeli/Pal conflict as a shield, in addition to the "moderate" regimes who use it as a distraction.

To: Ilaine who wrote (36300)	8/7/2002 1:41:49 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I remain unconvinced that Iraq poses a credible threat to US interests, "threat" meaning reasonable apprehension of eminent harm to life or property. CB, I believe, based upon our previous interactions, that you are a pragmatic individual. And I can understand why inately people could state that the threat Saddam currently represents does not YET rise above their threshold. But my argument is that it is inevitable that he will continue to create mischief and use his oil wealth to fund groups opposed to creating a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This benefits him in two key areas. It distracts US attention from his regional activities and re-armament, and it maintains higher oil prices (by increasing tension). Saddam, through his association with Arafat and other groups, has no interest in creating peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Yet, he has threaten US property. He defies US/UK/UN policy aimed at re-implementing weapons inspections. His forces regularly shoot at our pilots, threatening to kill them. And you know that, while I support the Israeli state, I'm not particularly a fan of Israel. I seek to remain a relatively objective observer of their policies and how they conduct themselves. They are, after all, a democracy, governed by the will of their population. But most of all, I continue to direct attention to the demographics of the muslim world. They simply CANNOT be ignored. The US MUST become directly involved and play a key role at creating pluralism and economic opportunity, lest these youths become foot soldiers for the extremists. But we cannot feasibly undertake a Mid-East "Marshall plan" without first removing the political obstacles to implementation. So can I prove that Saddam has played a direct role in the 9/11 attacks? No... outside of what has already been publicly reported and the claimed meetings between Iraqi intelligence and Muhammed Atta. But do I believe that sufficient evidence exists of Saddam's financial and political support for such activities?? Yes I do... And I assume that much of it is classified. And do I believe that he would provide WMDs to terrorist groups, given that "plausible deniability" could be maintained?? Yes, I do. That's the fear I have.. that if we don't take some prophylactic steps to altering the economic and political situation in the mid-east, it will continue to spiral out of control to the point where we are required to undergo full mobilization and engage in a much wider scale conflict to preserve access to mid-east oil. Either that or we need to undertake a massive domestic program of our own towards energy independence and "isolate" ourselves from any political activity in the region. But I think we don't have enough time to enact such a policy to any great effect. And US political detachment from the region would only accelerate the inevitable as others move quickly to fill the power void. Hawk