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: JohnM who wrote (65567)	1/12/2003 12:11:10 PM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

…given the obvious commitments of this administration to an invasion, is to ask why more has not been done to educate the public about the dangers of WMD in the US, if Saddam senses complete defeat. I am also very worried about the possibility that if Saddam senses “complete defeat” he may let loose with whatever WMD’s he may have right now. On the other hand, are we willing to give in to the intimidation by this – so far hypothetical – possibility? Do we have doubts that if Saddam DOES acquire nukes in the future, then, given an opportunity, he WILL plant them in American cities? This brings up a larger question: What if at that time the megalomaniacal narciss Saddam realizes that he still has to face a “complete defeat”, like an internal upheaval, or an evolving madness, or a terminal illness… Is it not possible that he may use his nukes under SUCH circumstances? This brings up an even larger question: It is possible that the current international political structure is inadequate for a world, where a petty outlaw dictator, or even a terrorist, might obtain the potential to destroy continents... Perhaps, in the long run our only chance for survival lies with some sort of a strong international presence, which would be able to stick its nose into what presently are “internal affairs” of various jurisdictions. I don’t think it must be an “American Empire” – but it would probably have to be some sort of an American-led empire.

To: JohnM who wrote (65567)	1/12/2003 6:31:02 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

the Doran essay is an aesthetic gem ... the Betts essay .. really needed a good kick Funny. I wonder if that might have something to do with the fact that the first author is still a young nobody and the second an older, bigger shot who is able to fend off intervention with his prose. Nah, that couldn't be it, of course... the Betts point which makes the most sense to me, given the obvious commitments of this administration to an invasion, is to ask why more has not been done to educate the public about the dangers of WMD in the US, if Saddam senses complete defeat. I generally agree with your analysis here, altho I'm not nearly as worried on this score as Betts is (no real reason, just a gut feeling). Doran's argument...is fairly familiar, at least the portion that deals with Palestine as symbol in the Arab world. Makes sense. ...However, it's not at all clear that the dichotomy Doran poses is quite so sharp. [what about] an argument that says whether [or not] such efforts could produce a settlement, the visible effort of making them helps reduce the anger at the US[?} This is similar to the comment from a friend re Doran that I posted myself the other day. It is certainly plausible, as you say--but I suppose Doran's argument would be that what you gain by such actions is more than offset by what you lose, which is basically the reputation for being unmaumauable. At the end of the day, he probably feels, that reputation is indispensable in forcing others to cave on the points most important to you. Since I can see the logic of both cases, I would hate to have to choose between them, and in practice therefore I would probably try to wimp out and split the difference--trying to pressure the Israelis just enough to dispel the notion that I was their poodle and thus helping to pacify some of our Arab allies, while not going so far with that pressure that the Pals and the Arabs more generally decide we'll do their job for them and thus they don't have to make painful compromises of their own. I'm not sure this would satisfy anybody, but it might well keep the situation on the back burner until after the Iraq stuff was done and pave the way for any post-Iraq intervention plans I might have. The ability to make such judgment calls correctly more often than not is the kind of thing that separates the (luckier?) hall-of-fame professionals from the good-but-not-great ones. Unfortunately we can't really bottle the quality, and being right one day doesn't guarantee you'll be right the next. So given that the stakes are so high here, whichever decision I took I would make sure to remain open-minded and monitor the situation carefully so I could make a mid-course correction if the results of my decision were unappealing. tb@cometothinkofit,thatsoundsalotlikeinvesting,no?.com

To: JohnM who wrote (65567)	1/12/2003 8:34:44 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi JohnM; Re: "3. I tried to think if Betts was correct, that no two WMD armed countries had ever waged total war with one another. None came immediately to mind." How about WW1 and WW2? In each of these wars both sides had military gases, which were widely used in WW1. In WW2 biological weapons were available, and nuclear weapons were used. For that matter, the Iran/Iraq conflict was total war, (at least to the two weak countries fighting it), and they both had military gases, though I don't think that the Iranians actually used any. -- Carl

To: JohnM who wrote (65567)	1/13/2003 5:45:53 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

Take this sucker back, organize it, clean up the prose, then we'll take it. Your point is a good one; just write better and argue better. C+? C2@theoldprofcan'thelpbutthinkhe'stillinmacademialandlikeLindyB.edu__hula.com or C2@puhlllleeezetakeurownadvice.com

To: JohnM who wrote (65567)	1/13/2003 6:04:25 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

6. The problem I have with the frame is that by focusing almost exclusively on the military issues, he increases the prospects that it is only seen in those terms. I'm more and more convinced that whatever the US does militarily, the failure to address the nonmilitary aspects of the ME, with nonmiliary means(no invasions to install democracy sort of thing), will leave the region in much worse shape, Al Qaeda and its affiliates in much better shape, and the US much more vulnerable. To whom are you referring? Betts, Doran, or Friedman? If Doran, I disagree with you. If Betts, I also disagree with you since his focus is self-limited. Can't criticize someone for keeping his argumentation linear, though I suspect that's not necessarily a virtue in your book. If you refer to Friedman, then I disagree with you 100%. It is impossible to tell to whom "he" refers to in this paragraph. C2@Takethissuckerback,organizeit,cleanuptheproseandgetagrammariantohelp.com