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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46055)	9/22/2002 3:13:14 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

No blank check for war LEAD EDITORIAL The San Francisco Chronicle Saturday, September 21, 2002 PRESIDENT BUSH just won't stop. He's upping the ante on Iraq again by asking Congress for blank-check war powers only days after demanding United Nations support. The president is tapping into powerful currents: Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's menacing record, memories of Sept. 11 freshened by the recent anniversary and public worry over future terrorist attacks. But there should be room for skepticism and doubt. Show us the evidence of Iraq's dangerous buildup of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Try inspections and ride Iraq hard. Enroll other world powers, skittish and self- interested as they are, before unleashing the warplanes and missiles. Tell us the plans for what happens next, after a war devastates Iraq, and a new regime assumes power. In the move before Congress, Bush must spell out his administration's intentions more fully. His request is an overly broad mandate that allows the United States to dump Hussein and "restore international peace and security in the region." This loose-fit wording is troubling. It could lead to a wider war spilling into neighboring countries such as Iran or anywhere else in the Persian Gulf that a hawkish, cavalier White House chooses. The goals, timing and trigger points for an attack are left unclear. It's a license to go it alone in a region that demands consensus. Debating these points, unfortunately, may be limited by domestic politics. Bush's unilateral approach to world problems is a winner when it comes to targeting Hussein, a dictator without a shred of legitimate support. Democrats, virtually silent during the Iraq buildup, appear ready to sign a war powers resolution. Older Democratic pols regret earlier votes against the 1991 Persian Gulf War while new members sense a bellicose public mood on the eve of November elections. Agreement could come in days, not weeks. Few officeholders on the ballot six weeks away want to be labeled as soft on Iraq. The handful of committed doubters are left arguing over the phrasing of the war resolution as the only brake on the run-up to war. Bush clearly has the political momentum to smother opposition and obtain a sweeping authorization for war with Iraq. He has deftly put pressure on Congress as well as the U.N., but his goals must be better explained. One consolation may be that Bush's incessant beating of the war drum has led Hussein to second thoughts. He's agreed to admit inspectors after years of refusals. Yes, his word is suspect and inspectors may get nowhere. But it's a remarkable concession from the defiant dictator. Bush has given the U.N. inspectors a chance to do their work, with the first group due to arrive in Baghdad next month. The dimensions of the Iraqi threat, murky right now, may be better known later. sfgate.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46055)	9/22/2002 3:37:56 AM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 281500

Very good article! So much for "containment"! Derek

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46055)	9/22/2002 9:48:22 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

>>But what you cannot argue with is the evidence that that Saddam has set up his secret weapons procurement network once again. That is the real worry.' << If we place ourselves in Hussein's shoes the past 5-6 years, his 'real worry' would be that the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia would cripple him economically and destroy him and his family via military power, imprisoning or killing them. To avoid that, he could submit to sanctions, in essence reverting his military strength from the top 4 in the region to an impotent force incapable of defending against numerous outside or internal aggressors. Instead of that, he has 'desperately' tried to build his arsenal. Despite his brutality (which I don't dismiss; indeed, if the UN has any strength, he still should stand trial for past war crimes if he can be apprehended), building his weaponry systems can easily be viewed as a defensive measure, designed to maintain his slipping hold on power. Certainly, if he succeeds, he could use them offensively, but given the powers arrayed against him, he could never reach parity sufficient to do so, except suicidally. If he has WMDs already, pinning his back to the wall offensively, where his demise is imminent either way, would have a great possibility of seeing the WMDs used. If he does not have them, a functional inspection program would once again set him back several years in his quest. The Blair dossier will achieve several immediate effects: 1) Western economies will take further punishment, as war/oil fears increase and in the US, govt military overspending advances. 2) We will go to war, sometime after Election Day. 3) The US Congress will see Dems in the majority in the Senate and House, impeding Bush in any domestic initiatives he pursues in the remainder of his term. We'll get another Veto-prone executive limiting Dem initiatives as well. The only compromises struck will occur in the last two months of election cycles each year, as incumbents jockey for re-election. 4) Any existing WMDs will be used by Iraq, or by other US/Israel enemies, so we will see biochemical attacks in the Middle East and on our shores. Such attacks are likely to come even after Iraq is defeated/surrenders, if any terrorist organization possesses them.... and I believe some do. 5) The negative impact on the economy (other than a 3-4 week market spike during the short duration of the war) will continue to be felt at least till the middle of next year. Where national security is at stake, the least of these worries should be the political implications. The country must be protected when clearly threatened. Yet the evidence does not support the war effort, and the probable repercussions give further strength to the inspections argument: less economic damage and less loss of life may be obtained that way. I think the Admin knows this and is willing to accept that damage because it seeks much more than Iraq regime change. The Bush Forign Policy has larger longterm aims: -- We have the power and we're gonna use it. And we have sufficient allies to ram it through since no force in the world can successfully counter it. -- Pre-emptive first strikes will henceforth be okay wherever our nation or national interests are threatened. -- Any country that shirks in the coordinated effort to root out terrorist groups might have to face Iraq's fate someday. It will be further promoted down the road via that old saw "making the world safe for democracy." Yet in many of the countries where the terrorist groups thrive, it will likely promote more repressionist governments. Savak II could be the result. It may prove effective in the short term but will continue to provide good breeding grounds for opposition. Corporate expansionism will be restricted, because Americans will be less safe, at least in the Middle East and South America. Within the US, anti-terrorism actions are likely to return us to Cointelpro measures, where even peaceful legit organizations will be harrassed and set-up, simply for speaking out against such policies. One big unforessen trouble area might be Mexico, because as the US economy suffers, so will Mexico's. As well, a nuclear confrontation over Kashmir may be an unintended side effect. This Big Stick Swung Wide policy has too many negatives to last longterm. But it seems that's where we're headed for a few years. As the economic impact and the possibility of more or repetitive attacks on US soil become apparent, it will be interesting to see how the US public responds. But if the economic impact is too great, that's easy to predict: Democratic control of the federal government for years to come. In the meantime, far more deaths around the globe will occur than the terrorists could have managed by unleashing all their weapons. Freedom and peace demand military strength. But it also demands it be used judiciously and wisely. And I think the Bush Foreign Policy is so overbroad that we'll be paying for it long after the policy has been abandoned.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46055)	9/22/2002 10:09:29 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Revealed: Iraq's quest to build nuclear bomb Interesting article. Any reason why you decided not to post the text? It's definitely an argument for more attention to the nuclear materials laying around the states of the former Soviet Union. The Bush administration apparently dropped the efforts of the Clinton folk to help the Russians inventory and control them. It's also an argument that Iraq is trying to obtain such materials. I don't know that anyone has denied that argument. By the way, I thought you considered the Guardian an unacceptable newspaper. Is that true only when they offer views with which you disagree? Ouch.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46055)	9/22/2002 11:10:05 AM
From: BigBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This is a scene that is dramatically and symbolically redolent of Berlin circa 1945: Jonathan Steele in Ramallah watches the final humiliation of the besieged Palestinian leader Sunday September 22, 2002 The Observer observer.co.uk It was precisely 1.28pm yesterday when Israeli troops emerged on the roof of what had once been the proudest building in the headquarters of the Palestinian Authority and unceremoniously hauled down the Palestinian flag. As Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, was holed up powerless and humiliated in his private offices a few feet away, the disappearance of the flag from above the meeting hall where he had once received the US Secretary of State Colin Powell and other foreign dignitaries marked Israel's final repudiation of the Oslo agreement, which it had signed on the White House lawn nine years ago.