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: stockman_scott who wrote (57515)	11/17/2002 12:45:43 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 281500

The all-or-nothing approach of immediate war would risk the unwarranted loss of American and Iraqi lives and increased terrorism. It would also result in an enormous refugee problem; the destruction of Iraq's economic assets and infrastructure; the potential destabilization of other governments in the region; and a costly postwar occupation — dependent primarily on American forces — of uncertain duration and outcome. War against Iraq is a lose/lose proposition.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (57515)	11/17/2002 2:06:59 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I saw this op-ed last night and thought, well this is anti-war and totally silly; 10 to 1 scott posts it in the morning. Sure enough... There is a more sensible first response should Iraq fail to comply. The response could be based on intensive air and satellite inspection and openly volunteered intelligence information gathered from member nations. This would be followed with methodical and precise air strikes against credibly identified weapons of mass destruction. What a swell idea. We already know that Saddam hides his biolabs in moving trucks and under hospitals; let's just bomb all the hospitals and trucks. Everybody will see the sense in that. An effective alternative enforcement approach would include three elements. First, no-flight zones now applicable to northern and southern Iraq would be extended throughout the country, giving inspection aircraft full access to all areas. Any firing on such aircraft would constitute a "material breach" under the current United Nations resolution. I don't know how to begin to address this, it is so nonsensical. We already have no-fly zones, and the planes flying in them are already being shot at daily. So I guess we have had "material breach" for some time (as Res. 1441 confirms). Has this been "effective" so far? Of course not, policies against Saddam are only effective when backed up with the most credible of military threats, just what this author wants us to remove. Even then Saddam doesn't believe it under the troops begin to move. He didn't believe us in 1991 after we massed 500,000 troops. He didn't believe us after we bombed Iraq for 38 days. Only when the army attacked did he withdraw from Kuwait. Likewise, Saddam does not find our current bellicose talk and massing of equipment in the Gulf credible enough to quit denying he has WMDs. So given this history, Leghorn assures us that a policy short of war will by some unexplained miracle be "effective", instead of just proving to Saddam what he already wants to believe - that Americans don't have the stomach for a fight. Second, member nations would be authorized to conduct air inspection by reconnaissance aircraft at any altitude ...because Saddam has thoughtfully painted a sign on the roofs of the builiding, "WMD program here"? WTF do you think aerial surveillance could show? Is Leghorn drunk? have the editors of the NY Times become so desperate for anti-war op-eds that they are willing to accept them no matter how implausible?