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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (2439)	1/21/2003 12:28:47 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

One thing that I find amusing is that whenever NATO or the United Nations requires heavy lifting, they beg the United States to intervene (for example, in Kosovo), clearly indicating that whatever mess ensues from mishandling the matter with Saddam, we will likely have to clean up, and yet they take offense that we would rather deal with it when casualties and destruction can be limited, and it can be well- planned, instead of having to threaten to make Baghdad "toast". If one is referring to the use of nuclear weapons, is not a credible threat, unless he uses a nuke that can be tied to him, and if one is referring to a massive conventional retaliation, well, it is very expensive to keep a lot of troops deployed for such a contingency, and takes a lot of time to get re- deploy after a stand down, which permits a lot of time to prepare to fight on his terms. Is the EU going to pay for a perpetual deployment? What will our standing in the international community be if we nuke them? As with my analogy with Hitler, we are within our rights to enforce existing agreements, and since sanctions have not worked very well, and have been exploited by the regime to win sympathy, I do not see how we can enforce anything without envasion or internal overthrow, and transition to a friendlier regime. Rather than preemption being a rogue doctrine, if the UN does its duty, this will all occur with proper consultation, respect for multi- lateral institutions, and under the auspices of international law. It is only if the UN does not do its duty that there is the possibility of a bad precedent being set. Now, you may object that we are shoving action down the throats of our allies. However, considering that whatever occurs will land in our lap anyway, it is reasonable that we should have a more than ordinary say in how to handle this. I, of course, believe that the evidence is there, but has been subject to secrecy constraints, to protect assets and make sure that Saddam doesn't move things. If they have, indeed, been pursuing their weapons programs, that is evidence enough of malevolence to warrant regime change. Why make nukes if you are not interested in using them? No one has threatened Iraq, not even Israel, so long as Iraq keeps to itself. In any event, I expect a stronger case will be made soon.......