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: Win Smith who wrote (38171)	8/16/2002 4:45:46 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 281500

Sounds like good advice from Henry K. He does not rule out the use of force merely advises caution in assessing all the possible ramifications. That's something the Bush Administration was bound to do anyway....

To: Win Smith who wrote (38171)	8/16/2002 4:49:21 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thanks, Win. I would be very interested to see the entire text of Kissinger's remarks, if they're on the net anywhere. This seems like the core of the advice, which makes sense: But he said that the ground-breaking status of such an attack, which breached international codes about using force only in self-defence, required meticulous planning to counter the scepticism of allies and the hostility of foes. Mr Bush should contemplate military intervention only if he were ready to see through a much longer diplomatic offensive, preparing the ground for war and ensuring a stable settlement afterwards, Dr Kissinger said. “Because of the precedent-setting nature of this war, its outcome will determine the way US actions will be viewed far more than the way we entered it,” he said. Edit: So if we go, we had better live up to the best of our reputation by staying and providing a Marshall plan for rebuilding Iraq. Makes sense, and the example of a functional Iraq would destabize the surrounding tyranies.