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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (56400)	11/10/2002 12:34:42 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "So if it was just for the election, why is Powell keeping up the pressure now? Shouldn't this be the part where the administration quietly lets it all drop, and moves onto their real concerns, whatever those may be?" The real problem in Iraq, as far as the war on terrorism goes, is not the regime of Saddam Hussein, but instead the fact that US sanctions have made the place a breeding ground for hatred of the US. What the US has to do is to eliminate the sanctions, and thereby relieve some of the anti-American feelings there. By signing up for a UN resolution that requires very careful and extensive inspections in return for an elimination of sanctions, the US gains cover to obtain what it is that we really need in the fight against terrorism, a time-table for the elimination of sanctions against Iraq. As I explained a few posts back, Iraq has no use for WMDs in the current military environment of the Middle East. During the Gulf War, Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel and killed a total of 2 Israelis. (I remember three, but the first recent link I've found says two.) Some "Weapon of Mass Destruction". A bad tire on an SUV is more dangerous, LOL. With that kind of history, Saddam would have to be stupid *and* crazy to risk his regime to keep them around for the purpose of threatening Israel. On the other hand, Scuds did kill a fairly large number of US and allied soldiers, but that was because those soldiers were massed (thereby making a more dense target) up close (thereby making aiming easier) to Iraq / Kuwait, and in preparation for invading. This suggests that surface to surface missiles make better weapons for protecting territory (in this case the ill won territory of Kuwait) than they do in attacking distant lands. The whole thing was an exercise in power politics. I still don't approve of it, as I feel that the policy did damage to the international image of the United States, as well as lasting damage to non proliferation. (That is, it is now only too painfully obvious that countries that have nukes, like North Korea, get a "free pass" from the United States, while countries that don't have them, like Iraq, get threatened. This creates an even greater motivation for small countries to arm themselves with nukes.) -- Carl

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (56400)	11/10/2002 5:30:23 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, Bush and Powell are following almost exactly K. Pollack's recipe. pp352 - 367 of The Threatening Storm Pollack also outlines quite well the argument in Bush's speech to the UN pp369 - 370. If that article in the NY Times you posted is accurate, and it probably is, they are talking about the same level of forces for the invasion as Pollack and the same sort of 'after care.' nytimes.com Personally, I think Bush and Powell are on exactly the same wavelength. I'm reminded of Eisenhower and Dulles. Good cop, bad cop. Only it's even scarier for the other guys because this time it's the Prez who's doing the bad cop. Dulles used to really give the other side the heeby-jeebies.