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 (47166)	9/26/2002 11:39:54 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

We Might Get More Bang With Our Bucks Forget war. Start writing checks. In the long run, we would save big. By ERWIN CHEMERINSKY COMMENTARY Los Angeles Times September 26, 2002 War in Iraq is projected to cost $100 billion to $200 billion. Surely there are other ways to achieve President Bush's desired result--removing Saddam Hussein from power, or at least denying him weapons of mass destruction--with far less money and without the inevitable human tragedy of a war. Is there any price at which Saddam Hussein could be bribed to leave, for example? For $1 billion, or even $5 billion or $10 billion, Hussein might well be persuaded to step down rather than engage in a war that he's sure to lose. Could a huge bounty on Hussein's head, say $1 billion or even $10 billion, end his rule without an American invasion that could trigger his use of whatever weapons he possesses? Some in the palace guard might turn on him if the price were right. Could the scientific talent in Iraq, those who have the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, be bribed to leave? In all likelihood, there are at most a few dozen people in the country who have the technical knowledge to build weapons of mass destruction. Through intelligence information and weapons inspections, they could be located and offered huge sums to defect. For a small fraction of the cost of a war, Iraq could be flooded with weapons inspectors who could look in every nook and cranny of the country and find any weapons of mass destruction. Imagine sending 10,000 weapons inspectors, an absurdly large number and enough to turn over every imaginable stone in Iraq. If each was paid $100,000 a year, the cost would be $1 billion. Even paying all of their expenses and keeping them there for 10 years would cost less than 10% of the cost of a war and without the risk of killing thousands. Moreover, an invasion of Iraq would result in significant casualties and increase the risk of Hussein unleashing weapons of mass destruction, the very thing the war is trying to prevent. Such options may seem silly at first, but on reflection they illustrate how many alternatives less expensive than war are not being considered, such as feeding starving people around the world. A war on Iraq doesn't make rational sense. But why aren't the Democrats asking these questions? Why aren't they pushing for consideration of a much larger range of options? In 1962, faced with nuclear missiles just 90 miles from the U.S. shore, President Kennedy refrained from the use of force, pursued other strategies, and tragedy was averted. Kennedy acted rationally; it's time for the Democrats and the country to insist that Bush do the same. _____________________________________________________ Erwin Chemerinsky is a visiting professor at Duke Law School. latimes.com

To: JohnM who wrote (47166)	9/26/2002 11:57:27 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Oh, John...even with "in your face" evidence, you'd probably say....."not good enough." The ONLY way it would be good enough evidence is if Iraq sends any one of the disasters in the making over, lands it on your front step, and it has a tag on it that says "Made in Iraq especially for JohnM".... Am I close? When I read your note, I had to chuckle to myself....Somehow I have you pictured as a very smart little elf with a twinkle in your eye and a pipe....and of course you are in the far left hand corner of the room....<g>

To: JohnM who wrote (47166)	9/26/2002 11:59:04 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

And then again, this is today's: Rice: Al-Qaeda have found refuge in Baghdad.... By JOHN J. LUMPKIN .c The Associated Press WASHINGTON (Sept. 26) - President Bush's national security adviser said al-Qaida operatives have found refuge in Baghdad, and accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime of helping Osama bin Laden's followers develop chemical weapons. Condoleezza Rice's statements, aired Wednesday on PBS' ``The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer'' program, are the strongest yet alleging contacts between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government. Previously, evidence of the two working together was tenuous, or came from unreliable sources. She made her accusations as the Bush administration continued to make its case to a skeptical world that Saddam should be removed from power, by force if necessary. They followed accusations from Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle that Bush was playing politics with the debate over war in Iraq. ``There clearly are contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here,'' Rice said. She said much of the information was coming from al-Qaida operatives captured since the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackings. This included several senior leaders whom the U.S. alleges organized terrorist attacks. ``We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al-Qaida going back for actually quite a long time,'' Rice said. ``We know too that several of the (al-Qaida) detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al-Qaida in chemical weapons development.'' Bush, speaking with reporters in the Oval Office earlier Wednesday, said he was determined to battle terrorism on two fronts - Saddam's Iraq and bin Laden's al-Qaida network because ``they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.'' The widely held view has been that while Saddam and bin Laden both oppose the United States, their motivations are too different for them to work together. Saddam seeks secular power; bin Laden's drive comes from religious motivations and his opposition to the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world. ``No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on Sept. 11, so we don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clearer, and we're learning more,'' Rice said. She suggested that details of the contacts would be released later. Previously, U.S. intelligence officials have said some al-Qaida members have been detected in Iraq, but that they appeared to simply be crossing the country while fleeing Afghanistan for their native countries on the Arabian peninsula or in North Africa. U.S. intelligence also has received information that some al-Qaida leaders are hiding in Iran, and the U.S. government is looking into reports that al-Qaida operatives are conducting training just over the Iranian border from Afghanistan. ``And there are some al-Qaida personnel who found refuge in Baghdad,'' Rice said. Earlier in the day, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made reference to links between Iraq and al-Qaida during a NATO meeting in Warsaw, Poland, but didn't offer details. Administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Rice's disclosure was significant because it marked the first time that the White House claimed that al-Qaida operated in areas of Iraq controlled by Saddam. It was an effort to counter suggestions that al-Qaida operatives were solely in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq, which he doesn't control. The disclosure is part of an effort to strengthen the case against Saddam, the officials said. Previously, it's been known that Ansar al-Islam, an Islamic extremist group in northern Iraq, sent about a dozen of its members to bin Laden's camps. The group is largely composed of ethnic Kurds and had experimented with biological weapons, U.S. officials have said. But any links to Saddam's government were tenuous. Bin Laden has sought chemical, biological and nuclear weapons for a decade, U.S. intelligence officials have said. His followers are believed to have experimented with rudimentary chemical and biological weapons, but they lacked the sophistication to use them in a way that would kill large numbers of people. Saddam's military used chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980s and on rebelling Iraqi Kurds. He also has researched biological and nuclear weapons - previously, the key complaint of the Bush administration against Saddam. Saddam's government denies having any of these weapons. After Sept. 11, officials in the Czech Republic said Mohamed Atta, believed to have led the suicide hijacking attacks, had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, which some viewed as a link between Iraq and the attacks. But U.S. officials have since said they doubt the meeting took place. The Iraqi government has been linked to other groups labeled terrorist by the United States, primarily those that oppose Iran and Israel. 09/26/02 02:24 EDT Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.