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: Dayuhan who wrote (47412)	9/27/2002 7:49:59 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It fascinates me that we've managed to redefine the terms until the debate is between full-scale invasion and inaction, as if there were nothing in between.... That's because no opponent of war has proposed any alternative beyond gestures (eg UN resolutions) and inaction. Who has laid out a serious alternative, or proposed how sanctions and containment could be resumed? And in fact, there is no obvious answer. Hundreds have pretended that containment was working great and could be continued with no problems, but it's hard to know even how to address such a stupid and unrealistic argument, that cannot even take account of the basic facts of the situation.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (47412)	9/29/2002 1:14:18 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Steven: It fascinates me that we've managed to redefine the terms until the debate is between full-scale invasion and inaction, as if there were nothing in between.... Unforunately, the present regime in Iraq probably, (almost certainly), will not cooperate with something in between. Their history shows they will not. The psychology of their leader shows they will not. Reasonable people would cooperate, but you are not looking at reasonable people when you look at Iraq's leadership. If you want to have a real inspection of Iraq's WMD potential and program, then you will need an army to enforce it. If you want to stop the regime from starting up a WMD program, you will need an army to stop it. Read Pollack's articles and book. I know you don't like 'Arab mind' stuff and neither do I. But a clear analysis of a regime's attitude and that of its supreme leader as derived from their behaviour is extremely useful. So, my question to you is what in between way will work if the Iraq regime is uncooperative? You can be sure it will not cooperate with whoever wants to do a real job of inspection. The record of the regime's behaviour from beginning to present does more than just suggest, it demonstrates so strongly as to predict, non-cooperation. Certainly, it will say it's going to cooperate but it will not. It never has. It has pretended to cooperate but in fact always has been obstructive. So, the inbetween program has to deal with no cooperation from the regime. If you want your in between program to include something more than just weapons inspection and want also to have the regime there also stop tyranizing and murdering its citizens, as put forward in UN resolutions, what would it look like? Your program will have to deal with no cooperation. I ask you how can it deal with no cooperation except either through inaction or invasion? You will not get cooperation except through coercion. Limited coercion through various sanctions will not work. Tha's what being done now. I know folk bring up the example of the South African sanctions but they worked in the end beause the regime there was reasonable. The Iraq record suggests, even demonstrates, the regime delights in being unreasonable. Think on this: the country suffered an incredible defeat in Desert Storm. Has its regime behaved reasonably since? Previously, it suffered gigantic losses in attacking a country 3X bigger. Before that it attacked Iran under the Shah and was so badly defeated it had to give in to all his demands.