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: John Carragher who wrote (46080)	9/22/2002 9:53:30 AM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"cnn news talk yesterday had four woman, news talk hosts, discussing much of everything.. Koppel's daughter says "We really must consider if Bush is going into Iraq because of the threat against his father". wow. I bet she really believes Bush is going in because Iraq tried to take out his father" You forgot to mention that they first played the CNN clip with Paula Zahn talking to George1. ANd how George! was ruminating on how much he hated Saddam. "I don't use the word hate much but I hate Saddam." It's not like Ms. Koppel was making it up without some really astounding footage which showed an over the top Bush. It was uncomfortable to look at Bush1 acting like he was In Golden Pond recalling the Championship Season and I was surprised CNN showed it.

To: John Carragher who wrote (46080)	9/22/2002 10:37:02 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Good questions, John. JOhn perhaps we will hear more supporting evidence this week to support first strike attitude... Waiting to see the release of information by England on Tues.. Yep, I'll be reading closely. Blair knows how to make arguments and offer evidence, something the Bush folk don't. I'm more than a little tired of the "evil man, let's attack" rhetoric. For me, that rhetoric is undemocratic (no need to persuade the population) and arrogant. Assume many of these countries do have terrorists training camps. Do you support "first strike" on these camps if through United Nations or diplomatic channels we cannot get the country to take them out.? Assume these camps are training men to destroy the U.S. Good question and I'm not certain. The important stuff would be in the details. Let's take the clearest case. If there is firm evidence of the last point--training camps of which the aim is to attack the US (I don't see anyone able to "destroy"), then certainly. Let's say, for arguments sake, a strong case could be made that such are in Libya, in Syria, in Iran, I can certainly see attacks on those camps (I typed "campus" in my first draft, ouch). There is another issue in your question, John, which is the "harboring" one. Should we attack the governments of any of these countries, that is invade, if the case can be made they are "harboring." That's tricky. If the camps are on their soil, that would not be sufficient evidence. If there were more evidence, it would definitely depend on what it was. I'm trying to stick with your restrictions that the US would be unable to convince other countries of the case. If the threat were genuine and the evidence were strong, I strongly doubt that would be the case. Since our borders are open,, we are in no position to check all the containers coming into the country etc. it would appear "first strike" is a defensive action vs. trying to be power of fear ... I agree with the part of that which says go after the source of those containers. For the moment, that's Al Q, not Iraq. Moreover, the Bush people don't make the the defensive action case. The one they make in their most recent, very official document, is the power of fear argument. But, yes, I'm definitely for defensive actions. And I'm mindful of the argument that sometimes a country has to get out ahead in a prospective defensive situation. But that does not mean a license to any administration to attack any and every nation they choose. As for the Koppel quote, that this is all about revenge for the alleged attack on father Bush, I have not argued that. It's much too speculative. My argument right now is that Iraq is but pretext for a radical change in American foreign policy, one that approves of preemptive attacks. So they do an attack which they see as in the long term interests of sponsoring more fear of US actions around the globe. That, I profoundly disagree with as a singular goal of US foreign policy. Let me thank you again for the questions.