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 (39433)	8/22/2002 11:39:17 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

But that's not global terrorists. And, for me, that's Al Q. John, I can't pull up a quote, (and if I did, it is "Intel" info) but I think we have good info of Al Q inside Iraq training prior to 9/11. Terrorists of all persuasions have been training in Syria, Iran, and Iraq over the years. We are probably going to have to move on all three countries to effect a regime change, one way or the other. I suspect that, if and when we go into Iraq, Bush will get on TV just before the action and announce that CIA has found the "smoking gun" that proves this. At that point, you will either give him the benefit of the doubt and go along with him, or not. BTW, long interesting review of "The Six day War" at the "New Republic" by Tony Judt, who lived in Israel in the '60s. Even though you read the book, I would suggest you take a look at it. It is more a "Memoir" of his experiences, and fills in a lot of cracks. thenewrepublic.com

To: JohnM who wrote (39433)	8/22/2002 12:38:07 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I thought Saddam was not a supporter of the religious mission of AQ. I thought he thought them a threat to his own gov't and was one of the least Islamic in the ME.

To: JohnM who wrote (39433)	8/22/2002 1:44:44 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

That's a good summary of a very complex puzzle, John. There are really two components to the regime change in Iraq proposed by the administration. The first part addresses whether there is a legitimate reason to invade Iraq and the second part weighs in on the wisdom of doing so. Of course, the US can do as they please because we do carry the big stick but as Brooks and Wohlforth have articulated in FA: "just because the United States can bully others does not mean it should." I think it's apparent the administration is scrambling right now to build such a case against Iraq and linking Saddam to al-Qaida. The Saffire piece today gives some credibility to the administration's case against Iraq but the jury is still out on this one. This is just the first component of the equation which is being addressed right now. If there is evidence to act against Saddam, the next logic step is to ask if it is prudent to do so. This is where all the cost/benefit analysis comes into play and where most of the uncertainties lie. If we look at Israel's military history as a guide, the policy of pre-emptive strike has had mixed results. In the Six Day War, Israel's pre-emptive attack on Egypt proved to be a decisive victory and laid the foundation for Israel's history of aggressive military exploits. But in the war of Lebanon, an invasion followed by an attempted regime change and occupation resulted in an ignominious retreat which emboldened fundamentalist terrorist groups. This is a rather complicated situation.