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 (47485)	9/27/2002 1:28:32 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Here's Pollack's conclusory comment in the NYT piece: Given Mr. Hussein's history of catastrophic miscalculations and his faith that nuclear weapons can deter not him but us, there is every reason to believe that the question is not one of war or no war, but rather war now or war later a war without nuclear weapons or a war with them. I suspect that this is the ultimate point of the book, but of course I may be wrong as I haven't read it. I can't imagine that he would have anything too different from that sweeping statement. Moreover, it seems to fit in fairly well with the Bush Administration's rationales. Does it ultimately make any diffrence that Bush has not articulated the rationalization as elegantly as Pollack if the conclusion is the same? Bush has a vastly different audience, and he may very well be playing to it instead of to those few who follow Pollack. At this point of the argument, I suspect that you will note that we have no post-invation, post-removal plan. And I would agree with you, but would counter with the argument that the danger may very well outweigh the need for any carefully though out post-invasion plans.

To: JohnM who wrote (47485)	9/27/2002 2:15:57 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Just caught a clip of Bill Clinton saying, with respect to fighting both Iraq and Al Qaeda, exactly the same thing I did, word for word, "we can walk and chew gun at the same time." CB@theyrewatching.com

To: JohnM who wrote (47485)	9/27/2002 2:28:23 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

. I look forward to seeing if I agree. I have read that Pollock, while a CIA analyst, predicted Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and it was rejected as something no reasonable man would do. This same thing has come up time after time in Intelligence work. Foreign Countries don't follow the "Reasonable Man" path. They take actions that make no sense to us. The '73 invasion by Sadat was another good example. Argentina's feckless Falklands adventure. China could invade Taiwan even though it would be a bad move for them. Atomic War between India and Pakistan. "One dumb thing after another" is the History of the World.

To: JohnM who wrote (47485)	9/28/2002 7:18:31 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

The Bush folk say Saddam is a madman, just believe us, we know, trust us. And, in doing so, turn away folk like me. And, if it were the Clinton administration doing the same thing, would have turned you away. Well John.. you've had 12+ years, just like the rest of us.. Are you saying that he's NOT a madman (or at least a megalo-maniac bent upon ruling over a united Arab nation by force)?? And btw, there was generally little opposition here at home to Clinton bombing Iraq during his presidency. What was so controversial was the limited actions he took and the fact that he was in the middle of an impeachment at the time, so it looked like a "wag the dog" scenario. Hawk