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 (57469)	11/19/2002 1:35:27 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

that doesn't mean it wouldn't be costly to cede Saddam hegemony of the gulf. He who controls 25% of the global supply of oil has quite a lever. We are not talking about ceding Saddam hegemony of the gulf. How did that proposition ever enter the picture? Even with the nuclear weapon he hasn’t got, he wouldn’t have any such thing. Ken Pollack also lists the reasons why we cannot get cooperation from Saddams neighbors for perpetual sanctions. Without that cooperation they cannot be enforced, and have essentially dissapated now, despite the continued use of military force. How many truckloads of oil have we blown up? Are you saying that we can force cooperation for a war but not for upgraded enforcement of sanctions? It seems to me that if we can do one we can do the other. You keep repeating how an attack would "make recruits for Osama". Well what do you think the current situation of no-fly zones, patrols, bombing, sanctions is doing? It's doing it over a long period of time, and rather ineffectually, so we inspire anger but little fear. Definitely a good recruiting combo for OBL, that. Do you really think fear of reprisal matters much to people who are being recruited for suicide missions? Which do you think is more appealing to the would-be terrorist: “sacrifice your life to defend the faith against a vicious enemy that has seized the soil (and oil) of Allah and is even now imposing his immoral ways on the people of the faith” or “sacrifice your life to defend the faith against those guys that negotiate and fly around in airplanes”? If you want people to devote their lives to a cause, you have to make them feel that something more important than their life is facing an immediate threat. Perceptions of resolve or strength have nothing to do with it at all. Do you think that these guys are going to run away just because we are willing to invade Iraq? Did they run away from the Russians? Get used to one idea: Osama wants and needs infidel troops on Muslim soil. That what makes him relevant. That’s what rings the bell, that’s what pushes the button, that’s what fires people up. That’s what they understand: defend the land against the infidel invader. Setting up a proxy government with its attendant aid apparatus and installing an army of occupation in Iraq would not only be a recruitment bonanza, but would also supply a nearly inexhaustible supply of static and easily accessible targets. Do you think the terrorists will ignore those targets because we showed the resolve necessary to invade Iraq? I don’t. containment is breaking down. Really? I haven’t noticed Iraqi forces breaking out of the contained zone any time recently. It hasn’t succeeded in overthrowing Saddam, but he hasn’t been able to do anybody any damage. The only breakdown I see in containing Iraq is perceptual: before, the Government wanted us to think that Saddam was under control, now they want us to think that he is a threat that requires war. The actual threat level has not changed in the last 2 years, all that is changed is the manner in which Government wants us to perceive that threat. I don’t know how you feel about this, but I’ve never been one to base an opinion on what Government wants me to think, especially when the war has so little payoff and such significant risks.