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: JohnM who wrote (38142)	8/16/2002 4:14:28 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>I'm going to take the liberty of offending some thread members << Dear John ,<G> That list , although well compiled for easy reference , is EXACTLY the gist of the arguments /discussions FADG have been having for some time now.This thread was/is well ahead of the curve on these important considerations , and the participants / members you may offend will have already been well exposed to the details , likely well beyond those in " the list ". They're big boyz 'n girlz........they shouldn’t be offended , in disagreement maybe still , but no, not offended. How’s yer stocks doing? <GG>

To: JohnM who wrote (38142)	8/16/2002 7:19:37 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

1. Why engage in a risky and potentially calamitous invasion of Iraq when the existing strategy of "containment"--entailing no-fly zones, sanctions, technology restraints and the deployment of US forces in surrounding areas--not only has clearly succeeded in deterring Iraqi adventurism for the past ten years but also in weakening Iraq's military capabilities? Because Saddam's "weakened military capabilities" are strengthening to a level which is dangerous, and intolerable. If you could go back in time and stop Hitler, would you? Everything is risky, but it won't be calamitous. We can do the job right, but it won't be easy, and it won't be pain free. 2. Why has the Administration found so little international support for its proposed policy, even among our closest friends and allies (with the possible exception of Britain's Tony Blair), and what would be the consequences if Washington tried to act without their support and without any international legal authority? Isn't it dangerous and unwise for the United States to engage in an essentially unilateral attack on Iraq? Because the international community has a long track record of sitting on its hands, hoping for the best. Chamberlain at Munich. Roosevelt at Yalta. Truman at Pottsdam. We stood by and did absolutely nothing about the killing fields of Cambodia, we did nothing about the slaughter in Rwanda. One of earliest childhood memories is of my mother telling me about listening to the radio when the Soviets invaded (I believe) Hungary during an attempted revolution, and how the students were throwing bottles at the tanks and begging the US to come help them. It's a little vague in my mind but I was brought up to believe that we should help other nations who ask for our help. We should not just help Northern Europeans, we should be willing to help anyone who is fighting against repression. We owe a debt to Lafayette and Pulatski and we should strive to emulate them. 3. Is the United States prepared to accept significant losses of American lives--a strong possibility in the projected intense ground fighting around Baghdad and other urban areas? Our military is willing to do it, God bless them. 4. Is the United States prepared to inflict heavy losses on Iraq's civilian population if, as expected, Saddam concentrates his military assets in urban areas? Would this not make the United States a moral pariah in the eyes of much of the world? We're going to let people out, not keep them in. If they stay in, then it's their choice. The United States is already a moral pariah in the eyes of say, China, North Korea, Cuba, Somalia, Sudan, and other places. I can live with it. I can't think of a war that was ever fought that did not make somebody angry. Unfortunately, wars are necessary. 5. Wouldn't an invasion of Iraq aimed at the removal of Saddam Hussein remove any inhibitions he might have regarding the use of chemical and biological (and possibly nuclear) weapons, making their use more rather than less likely? Probably, but we can't let that stop us, otherwise every scumbucket dictator on earth will copy him. 6. Are we prepared to cope with the outbreaks of anti-American protest and violence that, in the event of a US attack on Iraq, are sure to erupt throughout the Muslim world, jeopardizing the survival of pro-US governments in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and further inflaming the Israeli-Palestinian crisis? What pro-US governments? Egypt? snort Saudi Arabia? guffaw Don't you think that if we cut off a major source of funding and weapons (remember I think Iraq and Iran will be a twofer) won't that ameliorate Israel/Palestine? 7. Can the fragile American economy withstand a sharp rise in oil prices, another decline in air travel, a bulging federal deficit, a drop in consumer confidence and other negative economic effects that can be expected from a major war in the Middle East? And what would an invasion mean for an even more fragile world economy and for those emerging markets that depend on selling their exports to the United States and that are vulnerable to rising oil prices? Yes. There may be a recession due to higher oil prices. The war on terrorism requires sacrifices. 8. Even if we are successful in toppling Saddam, who will govern Iraq afterward? Will we leave the country in chaos (as we have done in Afghanistan)? Or will we try to impose a government in the face of the inevitable Iraqi hostility if US forces destroy what remains of Iraq's infrastructure and kill many of its civilians? We're going to install the guy with the Gucci shoes and the Rolex as interim leader and hold real elections. 9. Are we willing to deploy 100,000 or more American soldiers in Iraq for ten or twenty years (at a cost of tens of billions of dollars a year) to defend a US-imposed government and prevent the breakup of the country into unstable Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite mini-states? How likely is this? Sounds like something I'd read in an editorial the Nation. -g-