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: Bilow who wrote (56516)	11/11/2002 12:39:59 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

I don't know where the 100 billion dollar figure comes from, so I can't comment on it 180 billion to be more precise. It's Ken Pollack's estimate of Iraq's loss in revenues due to the sanctions. In other words, no matter what Saddam had done after the Gulf war, Iraq would still have owed reparations, and still would have had to suffer sanctions while they were being disarmed. Inspections was never going to be an instantaneous event. Instantaneous, no. Quick, a few months, yes. In fact, both the US and Iraq got stuck with the long-term implementation of a short-term policy. The US thought the Gulf War & sanctions would cause Saddam to fall; Saddam thought the allied coalition wasn't serious about sanctions and wouldn't keep it up for more than a few months. Both sides were wrong. By 1998 it became apparent to him that the objective of the US was "regime change" not disarmament. Utter bullcrap, Carl. Clinton never had the stomach for regime change and everybody knew it. That's why, when Clinton and Albright and company tried to get a "material breach" resolution from the UNSC in 1998, they were blown off - they had no credible threat of force. When he figured this out, the motivation for continuing the inspections went away, so he quit cooperating with them He never had any motivation for cooperation - WMDs are too dear to him - but in 1998 he judged, correctly, that Clinton was weak enough that he could force an end to pretend cooperation. Nukes might have stopped the US, but I doubt it. But that's not the real question. The real question is whether nukes would have stopped Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states No, Carl. The real question is, what would Saddam think he could do, once he had nukes? You have to take into account how Saddam has calculated odds in the past. He has a history of miscalculating badly. As for SA and GCC, what they would do is obvious: 1) try to buy Saddam off, 2) run to the US in a panic, 3) surrender. Maybe you're confusing "sanctions" with "inspections / disarmament". Even after disarmament is completed and sanctions are lifted, Iraq will still be getting inspected. Go back and read the UN Security Council resolutions if you don't understand this Carl, if we back down to a policy of deterrence, that means sanctions will be lifted without Iraqi disarmament. They are certainly not disarmed right now! That means all the inspections/containment UNSC resolutions go by the board. Uneforced and unenforceable. They will be replaced by some new tough sounding but meaningless resolutions about deterrence. But what deterrence means, is the game as it has been played for the last fifty years: Saddam gets a free hand inside Iraq, the only condition is that he doesn't try to invade the neighbors directly. Blackmail and extending spheres of influence will work if the neighbors don't have the gumption to stand up to him. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are not countries run by girls. They are run by men, and they will know how to defend themselves Interesting premise, somewhat at odds with reality. How well did Kuwait and SA defend themselves twelve years ago? SA and Kuwait are not run by girls, they are run by foreign workers. Even the pilots in the SA Air Force are Pakistani, did you know that? SA and Kuwait may have a lot of fancy equipment, but no military analyst I have ever seen takes their capacity for armed self-defense seriously.

To: Bilow who wrote (56516)	11/11/2002 12:48:05 PM
From: E. T.	Respond to of 281500

"Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are not countries run by girls. They are run by men, and they will know how to defend themselves." Well the little men have done an extremely poor job of running their respective countries so far. Maybe women in power is what these guys need to help them see some sense. I get a big big laugh whenever I see the Arab parliaments on the news, all men, never a woman to be seen. Bunch of dunderheads imo.

To: Bilow who wrote (56516)	11/11/2002 12:53:28 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are not countries run by girls. They are run by men, and they will know how to defend themselves They could have used Maggie Thatcher, don't you think? By 1998 it became apparent to him that the objective of the US was "regime change" not disarmament. Say what? How do you come to that conclusion? Saddam's actions speak louder than words. He clearly did not consider that regime change was going to happen at that time otherwise he would have never gotten rid of the inspectors. The heart of the problem was that Clinton was too preoccupied domestically to be anything but an annoyance to Saddam at that time. There is an assumption that Saddam Hussein would not have been stopped were it not for the actions of the "world's policeman". This assumption is untestable, but probably not true. The problem is that we cannot allow Saddam to think that the assumption can again be tested because he is likely to have nukes by the time the testing gets done. It is the incontrovertible justification behind the invasion. Given his underlying inability to calculate risks properly, do you thinbk he should be allowed the test the proposition after he has nukes in his arsenal? Ask yourself this one simple question: why does Saddam need nukes? He knows that so long as he confines himself to Iraq, he will be left alone. Moreover, he has no one to deter from attacking Iraq. So why the need for them unless he proposes to use them aggressively. Oooops, I forget. He needs nukes to vaporize the Kurds, and we should not interfere with his domestic affairs. Is this your argument?

To: Bilow who wrote (56516)	11/12/2002 12:47:33 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

By 1998 it became apparent to him that the objective of the US was "regime change" not disarmament. That meant that he would have to suffer inspections forever and that sanctions wouldn't be lifted until he left power. When he figured this out, the motivation for continuing the inspections went away, so he quit cooperating with them. No, by 1998 it became apparent that sanctions were not going to be lifted while he just pretended to stop building WMD. And he was unwilling to stop. So why continue the farce especially with a world which didn't seem to care except to continue the sactions. There is an assumption that Saddam Hussein would not have been stopped were it not for the actions of the "world's policeman". This assumption is untestable, but probably not true. Lawbreaking is punished even in frontier towns that don't have a "policeman". Instead, they have vigilantes. As soon as the frontier town gets a policeman, the citizens quit organizing posses, and instead let the policeman sort it out for them. ???? Like Hitler? He did eventually get stopped but imagine the lives saved if the English and French had put their foot down with Czechloslovakia. or even earlier. This really amazing thing about a lot of agenda of the left is how self-serving it is. The non-interventionist agenda seems to be at least as much about 'not getting involved' (i.e. why should we put ourselves out for those other guys) as it is about 'letting people determine their own destiny'. Nah, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will get nukes too, and then they'll have a "Mexican Standoff", just like the US and USSR had, or that India and Pakistan have now. Well, I certainly hope you are kidding. Even if Saudia Arabia started now with a bomb program you can't seriously think that they could catch up. And it isn't like Saddam would just let them catch up and then attack. Certainly patience and fairness and restraint are not among his virtues. Clark