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: michael97123 who wrote (70600)	1/31/2003 1:22:00 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I really do wonder how this thread would line up if Gore was president now and the policy toward iraq was similar? Excellent point, michael. Here's a bit of information on what Gore's stance vis-a-vis Iraq might have been if he had been elected. Not much different from Clinton's, I gather, at least as set forth during the campaign:. globalsecurity.org INTRO: The Clinton administration's inability to achieve its stated goal of bringing about a change of government in Iraq is shaping up as a key foreign policy issue in this year's presidential campaign. Last week, Vice President Al Gore met with members of the Iraqi opposition, pledging to continue working to overthrow President Saddam Hussein if elected to the White House in November. His Republican Party opponent, Texas Governor George W. Bush, shares that objective, but differs on how to reach it. V-O-A's Nick Simeone reports from Washington. TEXT: Vice President Gore promised the London-based Iraqi National Congress that if he becomes president next January, there will be little difference between his policy toward Saddam Hussein and that of President Clinton. /// GORE ACT /// The United States will not flag in supporting your efforts to promote a change of regime even as we continue to contain the threat posed by Saddam. /// END ACT /// But Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush - - whose father put together the international coalition that drove Iraqi troops from Kuwait nine years ago -- has advocated a more aggressive stand against Baghdad, with Bush campaign advisors wondering why more was not done during the Clinton/Gore years to oust the Iraqi leader. The Bush team has called the Clinton/Gore policy toward Iraq a debacle. One of Governor Bush's foreign policy advisors, Richard Perle, charges the administration does not have the courage of its convictions. Among other things, he says the Clinton team has not done what is necessary to enforce the Iraq Liberation Act, in which Congress set aside millions of dollars to fund the Iraqi opposition. Mr. Perle says only a small amount of that money has actually been spent. /// PERLE ACT /// The administration could appoint one official, just one, at a senior level who believes in the goals and objectives of the Iraq Liberation Act and who would honestly seek to implement the law as the law has been written and approved. I can't, as I look through the list of administration officials responsible for this policy, find a single official who is sympathetic to the goals and objectives of the Iraq Liberation Act. /// END ACT /// U-S officials say Washington has been slow in disbursing money and equipment to the Iraqi National Congress, largely because of infighting among its members and problems with accountability. Another issue emerging in U-S Iraq policy is the fact that it has been more than 18 months since United Nations weapons inspectors have been on the job in Iraq, a situation that no longer appears to be a U-S foreign policy priority. Former chief United Nations weapons inspector Richard Butler thinks it should be. /// BUTLER ACT /// The specific order of magnitude of Iraq's military threat today can't be known accurately, precisely, because there isn't an international presence there to measure it. What can be said with certainty is that absent international inspection and as long as Iraq continues to disobey the law, which it is today, it would be utter folly to assume that they're not back in the business of making weapons of mass destruction. /// END ACT /// President Clinton often used to stress the need for weapons inspectors to get back on the job, saying Saddam Hussein is determined to use weapons of mass destruction if he is allowed to rearm. Administration officials say Iraq has now resumed short-range missile tests. U-S officials are very concerned about such activity, saying it underscores the need to get U-N weapons inspectors back on the job. But privately, they say Washington does not want to provoke a fight with Iraq that could put American servicemen in harm's way before November's presidential election. (SIGNED) NEB/NJS/JP 06-Jul-2000 16:55 PM EDT (06-Jul-2000 2055 UTC) NNNN Here's something a bit more current: globalsecurity.org

To: michael97123 who wrote (70600)	1/31/2003 1:38:14 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I really do wonder how this thread would line up if Gore was president now and the policy toward iraq was similar? That is "Alternate History," michael. But I believe Gore would never have invaded Iraq. We would have 50 thousand troops in Afghanistan, and be chasing the Terrorists the way we are now, IMO. John would be happy, and the right would be grousing that Gore was not doing enough. Oh, and Gore would be insisting that Sharon make a deal with Arafat.