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 (37944)	8/15/2002 12:17:17 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sabah: US secret delegation to East Turkey relating to Iraq arabicnews.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (37944)	8/15/2002 1:00:18 PM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 281500

You may be right that Bush is "trash talking," but if so, why? I think Bush should have a War Forum in Waco similar to the one he just had for the economy. Then I could be confident he has employed the best and the brightest and listened to all sides of the issues before he commits to starting WW111. I know I felt much better after witnessing the great planning ability, strategy development and tactical choices he presented at the Economic Forum. And all before lunch. This is how he can make his case to the American people.

To: Ilaine who wrote (37944)	8/15/2002 2:45:46 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Yeah.. we're talking trash in order to create circumstances where we aren't required to invade Iraq (internal overthrow of Saddam by his cronies). But I also believe we're serious and this is part of an extended propaganda operation. In fact, one can only imagine if we were able to ask our European allies to first oppose US intentions, but then gradually come around and support intervention. The ramp up of tension on the part of Saddam would almost be palpable... False hopes that the US is just blustering and that Europe would support his staying in power, only to be let down as the pressure mounts. It's generally easier to get people to hop on the bandwagon late, than it is to get them on early and keep them on. Hawk

To: Ilaine who wrote (37944)	8/15/2002 3:09:09 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The only experience I have with trash talking is between athletes prior to and during a competition. So to me, trash talking means you are about to fight Or, you are trying to get your opponent to back down without a fight. The problem with this analysis of the present situation, is, back down to what? We have staked our goal as 'regime change'; anything less would be a significant climbdown for us, with a commensurate loss of face as we are much the stronger party. This is not acceptable, particularly as (imo) Bush chose this stance as a response to America's loss of respect in the Arab world. So if there's a coup and a regime change before we go in, we have a good opportunity to back down; otherwise, we either mean business or are just "mouthy punks" as you say. My vote also says that Bush means business.

To: Ilaine who wrote (37944)	8/15/2002 5:53:25 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "The only experience I have with trash talking is between athletes prior to and during a competition. So to me, trash talking means you are about to fight." Maybe I grew up in a different neighborhood than yours, probably the one that your parents told you to stay the hell out of, LOL. Trash talking does not mean that you're about to fight. Trash talking is done to exhibit a willingness to fight. Humans talk a hell of a lot more than they fight. I've personally seen weapons drawn in anger (or self defense) at least a half dozen times, but I've never seen anyone cut or shot (by another party). I've thought overnight on exactly what the US would have to do in order to alter the situation from the current one to a situation where an Iraqi regime change through military force would be possible for the US. The basic problem is one of obtaining assistance and support from allies. There are basically three ways of obtaining support. (a) You can bribe the other country, but that doesn't go far enough to make them do something that would destabilize themselves. (b) You can use your power to convince them that being your ally is a good idea, but as I've noted on this thread, US power in terms of conquering enemy territory and changing the minds of the locals is nearly zero. (c) You can get them to sign on as allies because what you want is what they want, but since the basic problem is destabilization, this is not possible in this case. (d) But if you can get them to be sympathetic towards you, you're in like flint. And if your cause is the one that attracts sympathy, you've also solved the destabilization problem, because their populations will be in support of action too. When we liberated Kuwait we used the sympathy card. The whole world felt sympathetic towards Kuwait and was more than willing, they were eager to help. When we liberated Afghanistan we also used the sympathy card. The whole world was sympathetic to what happened at the WTC, it was obvious that Osama bin Laden had caused it, and it was clear that the Taliban was responsible. The whole world was eager to help. Not a single neighbor of Afghanistan, even Iran, raised much complaint, and most of them gave us explicit assistance. Sympathy is an important human emotion, and a very strong force in international relations. *This is why every single country involved in hostilities puts out lots of propaganda to convince the rest of the world that they are the victim.* Unfortunately, the sad fact is that Iraq has defeated us in the sympathy contest. Since we retain our boot on the throat of Iraq, it is not possible for us to easily reverse this contest. This is not an error of the Bush administration, it's been going on for a decade. Sometimes countries (and people for that matter) get caught up in positive feedback loops that cause ineffective behavior to last for decades. A great example is our economic blockade of Cuba. The blockade is ineffective because the rest of the world doesn't do it. But our having the blockade prevents us from obtaining sufficient world sympathy that we could take some trivial action, like the shooting down of that private plane a few years ago, and trump it up to a causus bellum. The secret to international relations is, as Teddy Roosevelt (Republican president near turn of century) said, "walk softly and carry a big stick". What we're failing to do is to "walk softly". I blame this on the Cold War. We've been at war for so long that we've forgotten what peace really means. The correct Iraq strategy would have been at some time, perhaps after it became clear that Iraq was not involved with the WTC or maybe years earlier, to announce that the US was unilaterally ending its p---ing match with Iraq. This is not an admission of defeat, it's more a statement that we've obtained our revenge, and will take more later if the situation deteriorates. Since Iraq is a bulwark against the Islamic Fundamentalists who are the moral support for the concept of suicide as murder (i.e. Iran), making nice-nice with Iraq would also have helped make progress on the war against terrorism. Now, instead, we and the Turks are stuck having to hammer down the Islamic Fundamentalists in Kurdistan. If we let Saddam take it back over, he'd do it for us. God only knows what's happening in Southern Iraq. From the absence of news, I would guess that we're letting Saddam take care of the situation there. What Churchill said was "magnanimity in victory". We had our victory (in Kuwait), and if we'd been magnanimous the sympathies would be with us. Like I've said before, the true power of the United States is in peace. As it is now, if Iraq shoots down a US military aircraft there will still be zero world sympathy. If we weren't maintaining a military presence, we would still have difficulty justifying (in the eyes of the bystanders) a war based on how Iraq treats its citizens (i.e. the Kurds or Shias), but we would have a better chance than we have now. -- Carl