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: maceng2 who wrote (49594)	10/5/2002 3:55:43 PM
From: BigBull	Respond to of 281500

Words? The words of one Kenneth Pollack. American and former Clinton employee. AND, imo in a position to know. ALL BOLDING IS MINE, AND FOR EMPHASIS. From: The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq by Kenneth M. Pollack amazon.com The Preface - xiv-xvi: "I believed for many years that the United States could prevent Saddam Hussein from threatening the stability of the Persian Gulf region and the world through a combination of sanctions and limited military operations referred to as the policy of "containment." I still believe that there were paths not taken that could have done the job better for longer. Even so, containment served the United States very well for many years, and it is a testimony to the skill of the many American officials charged with implementing Iraqi policy since 1990 that the United States was able to play a losing hand for so long. Unfortunately, I believe that containment is no longer a viable option. Nor are any alternative policies discussed in this book more palatable or more realistic. It is often said that war should be employed only in the last resort. I reluctantly believe that in the case of the threat from Iraq, we have come to the last resort.... Just as France and Britain should have taken up arms in 1938, I believe that the United States should take up arms against Iraq to end the threat from Saddam Hussein's regime once and for all. This is not to insinuate that those who wish to contain or deter Saddam are somehow equivalent to those who opposed a war with Hitler - that they are appeasers. That would be a vicious slander, undeserved by intelligent and patriotic men and women who simply have a different point of view. Nor is it to suggest that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is of the same magnitude as that posed by Hitler's Germany. It is only to argue that the choices we face are closely akin to those faced in London and Paris in 1938 - a potentially costly war with Saddam's Iraq is well nigh inevitable and that it would be far, far better for the United States to face this challenge sooner rather than later.