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: Ilaine who wrote (41374)	9/1/2002 1:28:20 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

The Debate Over Attacking Iraq Heats Up nytimes.com [clip] Now, as President Bush decamps from his monthlong stay at his ranch here, he knows it is up to him to make the case that delay could be deadly. He will argue, aides say, that the rest of the world is averting its eyes to disaster as surely as Europe did in the 1930's, or America before it was attacked in 1941 and 2001. That is a very different tone than the administration struck just a year ago, before Sept. 11. Then it talked of containing Iraq with "smart sanctions" as it debated how to handle Iran and North Korea, the other members of what Mr. Bush later called the "axis of evil." Both seem closer to a nuclear capability than Iraq, and Tehran has historically been more involved with far-flung terrorists. The Central Intelligence Agency believes Pyongyang already has what Iraq seeks: crude nuclear weapons and missiles that can fly hundreds of miles and might some day span the Pacific. So when did Iraq become the most urgent of these problems — the one that had to be dealt with first? The answer is sometime after Sept. 11. Before then Iraq was considered essentially a regional threat whose conventional military power was far weaker than it was during the 1991 gulf war. And critics of the Cheney campaign about Iraq argue that, at least based on what is known publicly, the equation hasn't changed much. "Where is the sense of urgency coming from?" Gen. Wesley Clark, one of several former military officials who have urged the administration to take a deep breath, asked on television. "He's had weapons of mass destruction for 20 years. He doesn't have nuclear material, and we'd likely have some notice of the breakdown of the containment regime."

To: Ilaine who wrote (41374)	9/2/2002 12:35:52 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

Rhetorical question or not? If not, then yeah, OBL with a WMD deserves an immediate pre-emptive strike, as do other terrorist org members, Milosevich, Arafat.... essentially those with steady track records of violence indiscriminately targeting civilians. Hussein is borderline, till the Administration presents clear evidence of his support for current terrorist orgs, of recent attacks on other countries, of recent use of WMD on Iraq populations, or possession of nukes. Attacking Hussein does not require those senarios alone either. As he technically remains in violution of the truce agreement he signed, (by denying inspections) we could legally resume the Gulf War on that basis alone. However, because of all the geopolitical factors and regional risks involved, such a course may not be the wisest. And I believe a final ultimatum and time-limit, at the very least, should be employed. Proceeding on the merit of the term 'legally', alone, is not my preferred course with Hussein.

To: Ilaine who wrote (41374)	9/2/2002 2:57:01 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi CobaltBlue; It's a public forum, so I'll answer your question for SirRealist: "Just out of curiosity, is there any nation or any leader on earth who is so insane or so dangerous that you would feel that the US, the UN, or a target country was justified in taking his/her/its WMD away from him/her/it?" Not at this time. It is conceivable that there would be some WMD, some leader, and some country where preemptive action would be justified, but at this time there are very few countries with "WMDs" (which I translate to mean fleets of nuclear tipped ballistic missiles), and none of them are run by suicidal nut cases like Hitler. Re: "Or, in your mind, are all nations and all leaders approximately equivalent?" I didn't go to law school, but I can certainly recognize the rhetorical technique of "false dichotomy". (see P.S.) Here, let me try one: "Did you set up a false dichotomy as an example of rhetorical excess, or were you unaware of what you were typing?" -- Carl P.S. info-pollution.com