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 (41536)	9/2/2002 2:30:10 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You seem to think that if we don't attack him, he'll hang on to the weapons. I think he'll give Al Qaeda the weapons as soon as he thinks we might attack him. After all, once we attack him, can he be sure that will have the ability to give Al Qaeda the weapons? I think you are missing the point Steven was trying to make, CB. There has been an unwritten code of conduct in the international community to honor the sovereignty of nations unless one is attacked first or in the position of being imminently threatened with invasion. This administration is determined to undermine the sanctity of this precedent without good cause for Iraq (or until the president can present a unified case with urgency and conviction based upon evidence). The policy of pre-emptive strike will become a self-fulfilling prophecy in Iraq. We charge Saddam with the intention of using his current or future arsenal of WMDs. We invade his country based upon these unproven assumptions, backing him into a corner with no recourse, and he retaliates in response to our aggression by employing his current WMDs. The predictions come true by virtue of our own exploits. The pertinent question is whether a policy of pre-emptive strike will force Saddam into becoming the caricature of our own worst nightmares. Military history has shown, repeatedly, the futility of possessing nuclear arms for the sole intention of military conquest. The role that nuclear arms play in deterrence is unquestioned. In other words, nuclear arms are sought to prevent invasions, not to promote them. And by the way, the case of Saddam using nerve gas upon the Kurds and the Iranians are all consistent with the policy of deterrence. With the Kurds Saddam's use of nerve gas served to make a very blunt point: uprising by constituents of his own country which threatens the existence of his governance will not be tolerated. And when the tide of the Iran-Iraq war turned into the favor of Tehran, Saddam employed nerve gas upon the countless wave of Iranians overrunning into Iraq to deter any further advancements. It worked.

To: Ilaine who wrote (41536)	9/2/2002 9:23:57 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

He has every incentive to do it as soon as he thinks we might* want to attack him, and he's paranoid.* Not really. "Might" also contains an element of "might not", and he has little incentive to turn possibility into certainty. I think it's fairly evident that Saddam's focal goal is to retain power. Expanding his power is a secondary goal, one that has been effectively blocked at every turn (the contention that Saddam has ever been "appeased" is too absurd to even be acknowledged). We have a weapon that has served us very well in the past when faced with WMD. It is deterrence, and it works. Even nutcase dictators don't want to die, and do not generally sign their own death warrants. I don't like the idea of attacking Iraq without clear provocation and a clear exit strategy. I don't like it because I think that the situation OBL would most like to se is one where we have large forces in static positions of occupation, trying to maintain weak regimes that are incapable of surviving on their own. Such forces are ripe for guerilla and terrorist attacks and for intifadeh-style resistance. An extended American occupation of Arab countries would be a dream come true for Al Qaeda. No Arab army can resist an American attack, but the moment we cease to be attackers and become occupiers, everything changes. I don't think we should go into anything we don't have a clear route out of, and I think that there are other targets in the war on terror that warrant much higher priority. just wonder how you'd feel if your town had a bulls-eye painted in the town center. I'm not sure how having a bullseye painted on the town center differs from having one painted on your forehead. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight. I'm saying we need to fight smart, and I'm not convinced that we are doing that. I get the sense that some people are concerned that we will seem passive if we don't keep attacking people, and that the proposed attack on Iraq is aimed less at self defense than at the creation of a perception of vigorous action.