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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (68840)	1/26/2003 1:51:53 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Friedman sure makes sense here... <<...Unfortunately, when it comes to enlisting allies, the Bush team is its own worst enemy. It has sneered at many issues the world cares about: the Kyoto accords, the World Court, arms control treaties. The Bush team had legitimate arguments on some of these issues, but the gratuitous way it dismissed them has fueled anti-Americanism. No, I have no illusions that if the Bush team had only embraced Kyoto the French wouldn't still be trying to obstruct America in Iraq. The French are the French. But unfortunately, now the Germans are the French, the Koreans are the French, and many Brits are becoming French. Things could be better, but here is where we are — so here is where I am: My gut tells me we should continue the troop buildup, continue the inspections and do everything we can for as long as we can to produce either a coup or the sort of evidence that will give us the broadest coalition possible, so we can do the best nation-building job possible...>> nytimes.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (68840)	1/26/2003 5:10:31 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Arab Germany, a country with enormous human talent, enormous natural resources, but with an evil dictator, whom you've just removed."... "Arab Yugoslavia, an artificial country congenitally divided among Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Nasserites, leftists and a host of tribes and clans. I read this today and thought, "It will probably be about half way in-between." TWT

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (68840)	1/26/2003 6:26:48 AM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 281500

In the first scenario, Iraq is the way it is today because Saddam is the way he is. In the second scenario, Saddam is the way he is because Iraq is what it is. a most interesting turn of phrase... --fl

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (68840)	1/26/2003 10:32:08 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Thinking About Iraq (II) By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN As you might guess, I thought these issues were as important to consider as the first. However, the move between the next to last paragraph and the last one is the entire game to me. What does Tom Friedman think are the conditions under which war, given his previous columns, would be the "the only option?" Things could be better, but here is where we are — so here is where I am: My gut tells me we should continue the troop buildup, continue the inspections and do everything we can for as long as we can to produce either a coup or the sort of evidence that will give us the broadest coalition possible, so we can do the best nation-building job possible. But if war turns out to be the only option, then war it will have to be — because I believe that our kids will have a better chance of growing up in a safer world if we help put Iraq on a more progressive path and stimulate some real change in an Arab world that is badly in need of reform. Such a war would indeed be a shock to this region, but, if we do it right, there is a decent chance that it would be shock therapy.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (68840)	1/26/2003 1:28:21 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

And the real prize here is a new Iraq that would be a progressive model for the whole region. That, for me, is the only morally and strategically justifiable reason to support this war. Needless to day, I agree with Friedman on this point. The decision to pursue the WMD line of justification is simply a marketing program. Based on the resuls to date, it has not been an effective marketing program. Without crystal clear evidence, Bush will just not get the backing needed to achieve the long-term goal. People don't back big decisions until they understand why that decision is relevant to their lives. The argument that Saddam has WMD is clear but it is inferred logic and it is hard to send people to war based on inference. If Bush has the show piece evidence, then the WMD argument will prove to be the best approach. If he can only rely on inference, support for the war will be shallow and under constant critique, dividing the country and the world. His communications director was interviewed by George Stephonopolus (ironic moment, yes?) on ABC. He said, "The State of the Union" is not a slide show. So, it's not coming at the SOTU speech. It needs to come soon. Bush choose the WMD strategy to build support for the war. It is time to execute. Paul