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 (36504)	8/8/2002 11:36:49 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

A Time for Candor on Iraq New York Times \| Editorial truthout.com <<...When America is attacked, as on Sept. 11, the logic of military response is straightforward and the country goes to battle united and prepared for any necessary sacrifices. A pre-emptive war against Iraq, aimed at heading off a future threat, would be different. It must be preceded by democratic deliberation and informed decision-making. There may be a compelling case to be made for war with Iraq. The administration has not yet made it...>>

To: tekboy who wrote (36504)	8/8/2002 11:47:57 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

tb, I think there is a difference in containing a nation-state such as the Soviets or China under the Maoists and Saddam or supra-national terrorists. The MAD policy works on a traditional nation-state. Not sure that it works with terrorists or Saddam. Another point is that re-active wars have been the only morally justifiable type for democratic entities. But if a rogue state or terrorist organization were to acquire WMD capable of destroying large populations, can we afford to be re-active? One counterpoint is that Saddam may only use WMD as a defensive measure. He has to know that even if we didn't nuke him for some WMD attack, the Israeli's would. Another issue is that the Libyans, Syrians, N Koreans and Iraqi's have all aided terrorist groups. At some point we need to make that so costly as to tie the terrorists behavior to their nation states survival. Is Iraq the example? Not sure that I have any answers :-) Its kind of like being put in a F-16 cockpit on Sept 11th and seeing the 1st plane headed to the WTC. Do you shoot it down? In hind sight - yes. At the time - you would have waited until it was too late (and you would never have expected the 2nd plane). John

To: tekboy who wrote (36504)	8/8/2002 12:24:12 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

My own feeling is that since invasion represents a radical change in American policy--not just toward Iraq but toward international relations and war in general--there should be a strong presumption against it. Yes.. it certainly is TB.. But I think we all acknowledge that the existing international order was altered so severely on 9/11, due to the increased power of supra-national non-state actors, that it neccesitates a radical rethinking of US (and global) foreign policy. These non-state actors cannot exist without the direct complicity and support of rogue regimes. In fact, the usage of non-state actors to conduct a nation's foreign policy through false flag operations is an radical change of foreign policy on the part of states like Iraq, Iran, and Syria. They attempt to create plausible deniability, when any rational individual understands that they are privately applauding the actions of these terrorist groups. This is not so unilateral as some would claim to make it out to be. It's a reaction to increasingly more prevalent international reality where states use criminal organizations to conduct their own foriegn policy initiatives. And it's a particularly brutal trend as it involves the use of deliberate suicide attacks against civilian targets. A trend that is in opposition to all aspects of civilized international discourse. It nullifies the "rules of war", and circumvents the Geneva convention in what defines an official "combatant". And since "war crimes" only seem to apply to official states, using non-state actors to commit these heinous attacks avoids legal precedent against the sponsoring regime. Hawk

To: tekboy who wrote (36504)	8/8/2002 12:37:59 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Rumsfeld’s coup d’intel msnbc.com One small step for DOD, one giant misstep for the USA

To: tekboy who wrote (36504)	8/9/2002 2:13:26 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi tekboy; Re: "My own feeling is that since invasion represents a radical change in American policy--not just toward Iraq but toward international relations and war in general--there should be a strong presumption against it." What's the distinguishing difference between Iraq and Haiti, as far as the radical change in American policy? Clinton was prepared to invade Haiti, and the government there only gave in when they knew that the paratroopers were suited up. I'm not trying to pick apart your argument, but am simply trying to understand exactly what you're saying. -- Carl P.S. Perhaps magnitude?