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: Dayuhan who wrote (57800)	11/19/2002 3:10:34 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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. Yes, that is the essence of Ken Pollack's argument. We are pretty well concentrating the full energy of US foreign policy to force cooperation for the war. Such an effort cannot be enforced over a long period of time. We cannot keep up a sprint over the course of a marthon. The very permanent nature of the sanctions is objectionable to our allies in the region; and economic sanctions require active agreement. We don't have it anymore. Ken Pollack says the private question of diplomats in the region is, "If you want Saddam gone, why don't you just invade?" Do you really think fear of reprisal matters much to people who are being recruited for suicide missions? How about hope of victory? It's much easier to recruit for a winning cause than a losing one. Osama preaches his version of the "spiderweb society" theory - American only looks big and strong, but it's really weak; it can't take blows, it has no faith. That is one image we cannot afford to keep enforcing. Get used to one idea: Osama wants and needs infidel troops on Muslim soil Yes. How did they get there? To contain Saddam. Why did they stay there? To keep containing Saddam. When do they have any chance of going home? When there is a stable, non-aggressive regime in Iraq. We will arrange for non-Americans to do long-range peacekeeping. I very much doubt many Iraqis will be sympathetic to Al Qaeda; even if some are, Al Qaeda usually goes after softer targets. Doubtless there will be some barracks getting blown up as in Khobar Towers, but the course you suggest leaves us equally vulnerable imo. Really? I haven’t noticed Iraqi forces breaking out of the contained zone any time recently Since he tried to revinvade Kuwait in 1994, you mean? There was also the time he massed troops at the Syrian border; we're not sure what that was about. If we don't get rid of Saddam, sooner or later we will have to pull out our troops and let the neighbors cut their own deals with Saddam. The situation is untenable. Saddam's MO is to attack somebody when he feels threatened. Sometimes the somebody is in Iraq, sometimes not. Saddam is the problem.