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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (38136)	8/16/2002 12:53:42 PM
From: LLLefty	Respond to of 281500

>>>>can't remember the last time the Times quoted Henry Kissinger as an expert on anything<<<< There is much more to the Kissinger-Iraq piece than noted by The Times. The Washington Post carried the text in its print op-ed earlier this week but it is unavailable for internet transmission; copywrited by LA Times syndicate. In Kissinger style, it is many layered analytically and, as I recall, he can see much good coming in the ME from toppling Saddam if we play the whole game. Henry remains our finest conceptualizer; Scowcraft and Zbig should sit at his feet.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (38136)	8/16/2002 1:09:26 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

. . . it's hardly suprizing that we should find some traditionally isolationalist Republicans against it. That strikes me as a fair characterization of Armey and Buckley but surely you don't mean to include Scowcroft, Hagel, and Kissinger in that. Or do you?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (38136)	8/18/2002 12:12:01 AM
From: jcky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Whatever you can accuse Rumsfeld and Cheney of (and I believe they formulated this policy), immaturity and inexperience in the arena of foreign policy aren't among them. Well then... let's just say they are absolute, bellicose, ideologic, unilateral moralists living in a complex, multilateral, dimensional world. their 'moral clarity' is designed to line up with our national interest, jcky. The case for Saddam's supporting Al Qaeda is thin, but for his training terrorists and supporting Palestinian terrorists is rock solid. I understand, Nadine. I was being facetious to illustrate the administration's lack of presentational skills in convincing our allies on a policy of pre-emptive war against Iraq. Of course, it's hard to convince an audience when the administration has no clear solutions on addressing a post-Saddam Iraq. The core of the argument is, the situation in Iraq is too dangerous to be let alone to degenerate further. It's a compelling argument but not a definitive reason to invade Iraq.