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: Dayuhan who wrote (39369)	8/21/2002 11:55:27 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I would guess that once we "have" Iraq - and, barring HIV or rabies, I can think of few things I'd want less - the Islamist priority will shift to destabilizing whatever regime we insert. That would force us to keep troops there, in static positions, ideal targets for terrorist attack and intifadeh-style resistance. The real danger here that I see is that we will find ourselves choosing between indefinite support for a shaky regime in Iraq and backing out, which would be tantamount to surrender. It's a possibility, and certainly not an appealing one. The question is, which scenario makes it more or less likely that a stray nuke will go off in Manhattan, this one or doing nothing?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (39369)	8/22/2002 1:38:17 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Listen up, Mr. President Editorial The Baltimore Sun Originally published August 20, 2002 DO PRESIDENT Bush's policy advisers really believe the more they repeat the phrase "Saddam Hussein must go" the more likely it will happen? They keep repeating the president's mantra of "regime change" even as a cross-section of influential voices in the country caution against a preemptive strike to oust the Iraqi dictator. Is anyone listening? The latest Bush insider to promote the case for a war against Iraq is national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who articulated the pro-strike position in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation. (The British public opposes any involvement in a United States-led attack on Iraq.) Her remarks, which the BBC released last week, followed a series of commentaries from foreign affairs heavyweights - former secretary of state Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser under both Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush - and comments from leading Republicans on Capitol Hill. Each, in his own way, warned President Bush of the consequences of moving ahead with plans to topple Mr. Hussein without support from U.S. allies, a large military force and a post-war commitment to rebuild Iraq. So far, the administration has not lined up any of those prerequisites. No one disputes the fact that the international community would be better off without Saddam Hussein in power. But, as The Sun has said before, the administration has not made a compelling case for moving against him now - or in the near future. The absence of a cogent argument suggests that leading administration officials are split on the issue, and neither side has won over the president. Mr. Scowcroft insists that an attack against Iraq would undermine U.S. efforts to combat international terrorism, the purveyors of which are proving difficult to overtake. Is the U.S. military equipped to do battle on both fronts? A preemptive strike also raises issues beyond the need for a public debate in this country. Mr. Kissinger points out the illegality of a preemptive strike under international law. If the United States attacks Iraq simply because it doesn't have "the luxury of doing nothing," as Ms. Rice puts it, then what prevents other nations from following the same course when they feel threatened? India and Pakistan, nuclear powers with a longstanding dispute over Kashmir, would spark justifable international panic if they employed the same logic. If the Iraqi regime poses a unique threat to the United States and its allies, one that warrants a break with the conventions of modern warfare, then now is the time for the administration to prove it. But if that case can't be made, Mr. Bush and his advisers will be going it alone - both at home and abroad. It's difficult to see how that would serve anyone's interests. Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun sunspot.net