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 (38264)	8/16/2002 11:47:50 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Kissinger is not saying, don't invade Iraq. What he is saying is that you cannot just invade Iraq. If you A) invade Iraq, you must B) first make your case for it, C) do serious nation-building afterwards, and D) have thought through your new position on the new international system that will arise in the wake of your actions. Kissinger supports doing A, B, C and D, so that's quite different from Snowcroft's position. We are selective quoting and as squirrelly a guy as Kissinger is deadly for selective quoting. I don't know that anyone has argued that K says, up front, don't invade. But he is saying if you invade it must be done with allied agreement and with widespread congressional approval and you must be prepared to engage in a large reconstruction effort. A lot of folk are saying the same thing. K and S are not the only ones. And a lot of those lot of folk are Republicans. I'm not arguing for K. Definitely not. Just that this public split in the inner circles of the Republican heavy hitters is fascinating and, at least for the moment, suggests Powell has found a way in the back door to argue his points. Assuming these are his.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (38264)	8/17/2002 2:15:01 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Respond to of 281500

>> If you A) invade Iraq, you must B) first make your case for it,<< Mr. K is quite clear on this issue, as have others on this thread Nadine. >>America's special responsibility, as the most powerful nation in the world, is to work toward an international system that rests on more than military power -- indeed, that strives to translate power into cooperation. Any other attitude will gradually isolate and exhaust us. The objective of regime change should be subordinated in American declaratory policy to the need to eliminate weapons of mass destruction from Iraq as required by the U.N. resolutions.<< The restoration of the inspection system existing before its expulsion by Saddam is clearly inadequate. ( Some, like Ritter, might take that position to task given information that surfaced lately. ) >> It is necessary to propose a stringent inspection system that achieves substantial transparency of Iraqi institutions. Since the consequences of simply letting the diplomacy run into the ground are so serious, a time limit should be set. The case for military intervention will then have been made in the context of seeking a common approach.<< ( He should have also recommended a time limit and/or points satisfied be set so as not to infer a permanent inspection system be established.This one of the contentions Saddam has with allowing the inspectors in.This MUST be addressed.) >>At that point, too, America's allies will be obliged to face the choice they have thus far evaded: between their domestic opposition or estrangement from the United States.<< Indeed.