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 (64211)	1/3/2003 12:09:36 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

An excellent, well argued piece, Scott. I think we've seen much of it in the past. These kinds of strongly argued pieces, which run counter to the Bush approach, need to get as wide an airing as possible. One exercise would be to compare Ken Pollack's argument that Saddam is not deterrable with this one.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (64211)	1/3/2003 12:30:16 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Scott, If saddam gets nukes he can control the region without firing a shot. Which Arab state would believe for a second that s future US govt would risk a WMD attack(combo bio, nuke and delvd by iraqi agents and/or al quaida or palestian terrorists). Hell I wouldnt sacrifice NY for Kuwait. DeGaulle didnt believe the US would risk annihilation for europe and built the French bomb in the early 60s for the same reason. And thats the reason for the Israeli deterrent as well during the cold war. Much would depend on who was the leader in the US at the time Saddam chose to act.. Picture this. Saddam says he wants Kuwait and has deployed nukes on ships, in cities and/or bio weapons with his agents or terrorists abroad. What would the American people tell their government to do. Go to Kuwaits defense and risk 20 million american dead? See this is the real danger of saddam and the academics make the wrong assumption that the US will always go to war in this circumstance. Not true. And using the cold war as an example of how this worked is false as well. These weapons were not mobile and most disputes were fought with conventional weapons with balance on both sides, both conventional between combatants and nuclear between US and USSR. Look at vietnam or korea where this went on. It is the very fact that iraq will not be our wmd equal that makes it so dangerous. There is no red phone hot line in play here. Am i making any sense with this line of reasoning? Mike

To: stockman_scott who wrote (64211)	1/3/2003 12:36:32 PM
From: teevee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

stockman, "An Unnecessary War" was a thoughtful article, however the time for reason has passed. Bush must invade Iraq. If he does not, he will become the laughing stock of America's allies and every despot and dictator in the world, making America look weak and vacillating. From the article "CAll off the War" Asked by a reporter about an "inevitable" attack on Iraq, he (Bush) snapped back: "I'm the person who gets to decide, and not you." That response suggested more than a degree of uncertainty and not a little inner tension. It now appears the only way war with Iraq can be averted is if none of the options given by Bush's advisors include proceeding with war. Is this a likely outcome given the record of the hard liners that advise Bush? As for North Korea, what was the value in threatening a preemptive (surgical) nuclear strike when there are 500,000 artillery rounds (and maybe two nuclear tipped missiles) on a hair trigger just a few miles away from 10's of thousands of American troops and millions of South Koreans?. Now that the threat has been made, the danger of withdrawing troops from South Korea is that North Korea may interpret such a move as a precursor to a preemptive strike. Why show your hand? 2003 could prove to be a very interesting year.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (64211)	1/3/2003 3:21:13 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"Saddam reportedly decided on war sometime in July 1990, but before sending his army into Kuwait, he approached the United States to find out how it would react. In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, “[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had “no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.” The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did. THis information is always buried. I wonder how many years it will take until "conventional wisdom" will accept this factual and introduce it into the records. (No wonder the records of that period are not being released by W.) Rascal@ ucanpaymenoworlater.com