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 (40425)	8/27/2002 11:07:55 PM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 281500

Cheney vs. Scowcroft Very interesting read. Thanks John. --k

To: JohnM who wrote (40425)	8/27/2002 11:13:26 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Where’s Colin Powell when we need him? An attack on Iraq should be last resort By Chris Matthews MSNBC Columnist WASHINGTON, Aug. 26 — The American people are not wholeheartedly committed to a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Cheney’s staff is. Rumsfeld’s deputies are. The White House’s speechwriting office is. The guys they’re working under are. But what about the families of those who will do the actual fighting? What about the country that will have to suffer the casualties and bitterness that are the wreckage of every war? msnbc.com

To: JohnM who wrote (40425)	8/28/2002 12:04:47 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

And Saletan just moves the goalposts back again, making it seem as if Cheney based the crux of his argument on Saddam's giving nuclear weapons to terrorists, when the core of Cheney's argument rested on Saddam's aggressive track record and the extent to which we will be deterred from moving against him if he has nukes. It is not as if Saddam had displayed any history of compliance with the UN inspectors or with his signed agreements. As he grows stronger, the compliance will grow less, not more. Even with regard to Saddam's giving the weapons to terorists, Saletan follows Scowcroft in poo-pooing the idea. Such weapons would have a Baghdad return address on them, he says. What if Saddam was cleverer than that, and the trail was not clear? If OBL had had a dirty bomb on 9/11, how long would it have taken us to trace it? Might the political situation prevent us from moving against Saddam, just as it prevents us now from moving against the Saudi princes who funded Al Qaeda? The thing is far from sure. But the benefits Saddam would reap in the Arab world from the mere perception, those are sure. Henry Kissinger thinks the dangers are real enough to break with his own policies of realpolitik.

To: JohnM who wrote (40425)	8/28/2002 1:44:57 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

John....Have looked for credentials for William Saletan...don't see them, other than at Slate....Do you have a link for his bio or resume....?

To: JohnM who wrote (40425)	8/28/2002 11:37:29 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Actually John, I have to say that I'm finding myself underwhelmed by the case the Bush administration is making vis-a-vis Iraq. They certainly need to be either more specific, or more far-reaching (specifying Iraq as only the first of the despotic regimes in the region to be targeted).. The underlying politics of all of this are fascinating to watch. Is it Bush Jr. pushing this agenda and Cheney having to fumble for specific words to defend the administration's position? I don't see that as likely. Cheney plays a significant role in formulating this administration's policy (unless something has changed over the past year) Or is it Rumsfield and some of the more hawkish elements pushing Bush in this direction and dragging Cheney and Powell along?? (when was the last time we saw Colin Powell spewing soundbites on the news?) But what really interests me the most is James Baker stepping forward and expressing his opinions. Baker is the heavy hitter (as we know from his representation of Bush Jr. during the election legalities and Reagan-Bush days). He's a no-BS kind of guy and certainly no wimp. So when he steps in and advocates that we have to send inspectors back into Iraq, backed by the threat of force, then unlikely that any invasion of Iraq will occur in the near term. Of all the people out there I would not want to ignore on Foreign Policy, I think James Baker is near the top of the list. cnn.com It certainly is unless this administration is unwilling to reveal the intelligence it has implicating Saddam and his intelligence agencies in supporting terrorism. The recent belated announcement by Qatar that they would not permit US strikes against Iraq to occur from their territory is the latest blow to the Bush administration. So now it's a matter of "put up or shut up" with making their case, or taking the "low-road" with a renewed inspection program. I think we're still going to wind up pressing for regime change in Iraq, but we're going to be required to jump through a few more hoops before that event occurs. But again, if Bush/Cheney have not compiled a more compelling and specific argument to make than the vague generalities he used in that speech yesterday, they are in for some serious backtracking. Of course, I have a different perspective since I look at demographic trends and am pressing for regime/system changes in not just Iraq, but SA, Iran, and a few other Muslim nations. But of course, my perspective isn't sufficiently "PC" to be public policy. But one side of this is that we are forcing a bunch of nations to fall in line with renewed inspections in Iraq, and invasive ones at that. And the only way this can occur is if the US threatens to act militarily, and to hell with our "Arab allies". Because let's face it.. The Arab governments in the region despise Saddam and want to see him gone. But it's the pressure from their subjugated populations, the so called Arab street, that worries them. Thus, they have to publicly opposed any US action against Iraq, lest they face being overthrown themselves. So they will be more willing to take any action, outside of direct military attack, that prevents Saddam from obtaining WMDs. Hawk