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: jcky who wrote (52723)	10/17/2002 4:11:59 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The biggest reason the Mideast is vitally strategic for Americans is because of the oil reserves. Yes, true. We should have paid more attention to alternatives. But foreign policy can't be built on 'coulda shoulda woulda' - it has to be built on current reality. The Islamic fundamentalists can be contained and deterred in my humble opinion, Nadine, but I have my doubts about whether we will ever be able to eliminate them completely without destroying ourselves in the process. Here we have a difference of opinion. I do not believe that the Islamic fundamentalists can be contained while they have safe havens of operation -- and a nuclear armed Iraq would be such a safe haven. 9/11 changed the face of warfare -- containment in the future is going to be much more difficult than containment in the past. MAD provided the cornerstone for American security during the cold war and has remained relevant today. It is the blueprint copied by the Israelis with their Samson option in the Mideast so really I don't understand your hostility here. I have never been morally abhorrent with MAD. Most liberals hated the thought of MAD, they just like it now because they can use it against Bush. Using deterrence against a weak enemy whom we could defeat outright is a sure-fire way to make ourselves weaker than we need be, both in reality and in the perception of all the other players in the game. Since I favor a strong America I don't favor this course. I suspect that most of those arguing for deterrence really favor a weak America, whether openly or secretly. It works so don't knock it which is something I cannot say about pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive wars have worked quite effectively sometimes. Wars would not remain such an attractive foreign policy option, considering their huge risk, cost and destructiveness, if they did not have the power of decisively shaping the political framework in a manner far surpassing even the most effective diplomacy.

To: jcky who wrote (52723)	10/17/2002 5:56:59 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Re. MAD and deterrence or Iraq. Seems to me for deterrence to work both sides must recognize a nuclear war would be a disaster and have a high desire to avoid that disaster. Prior to the start of the Gulf War, Saddam faced a powerful military coalition dedicated to removing his troops from Kuwait. He had no allies, no hope of winning the war, and knew that the coming war would be disastrous for his country. We know now his own intelligence advisor had told him so. UN and Russian and other diplomats tried to give him a face-saving way for him to withdraw and avoid the war. Yet he chose disaster. I find it hard to believe he'd be any more reasonable when he eventually possesses nuclear weapons.