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: LindyBill who wrote (71514)	2/5/2003 2:05:18 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 281500

The team at the top is very impressive. Steadily, professionally and skillfully they've put the foreign affairs pieces together in their case against Iraq. The UAV part of the presentation was something I hadn't considered before. Our military will have their hands full taking out Iraq's arsenal before we move in on the ground.

To: LindyBill who wrote (71514)	2/5/2003 2:26:13 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

To me, the key is what the American Public thought of it. Yes, I agree. This will be no short campaign in Iraq, and a lot of Americans, maybe even the majority, have been saying on Iraq "Alright, if you say this is necessary, we'll follow you - are you sure this is really necessary now?" Colin Powell gave a very convincing case: "Yes, I'm sure. Doing anything less amounts to waiting and seeing if and when Saddam will supply Al Qaeda with biological or chemical weapons." So I think Americans will come aboard. Will the Security Council? I think so. The French seem to be beating a hasty retreat from M. de Villespin's sand-bagging of Colin Powell two weeks ago. I think Colin Powell just got even, in a big way. TWT.

To: LindyBill who wrote (71514)	2/5/2003 4:20:52 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

So, how does Powell's presentation affect going to war with Iraq? Just finished watching it, Bill. It's almost 4 in the afternoon on the east coast. I had meetings all morning so cranked up the TIVO. Wonderful tool. Very powerful presentation. The first public presentation from this administration on this issue in which I felt as if I were being treated as an adult; the rest simply talk down to citizens, ridicule those who disagree or who are skeptical. This was adult to adult. Congrats to Powell. I thought the argument that Iraq is hiding its WMD was powerful and, while not new, was admirably buttressed by specific mention of specific events and amounts. It's one thing to say they are hiding; it's yet another to lay the amounts on the table. Unless something pops in the next few days which raise serious questions about Powell's evidence, that's once again, very powerful. I say the amounts are important because several have made the argument that he is a right to hide because the US has made it obvious it will attack; thus he has a right of self protection. But Powell's very deliberate presentation of amounts makes that case less credible. I thought the argument about nuclear capabilities less powerful in that it lacked as much strong evidentiary base. Because Powell has the reputation he does and because he has not been a part of the overstatements, misstatements, even deceptions from the administration, it's much more believable. Still, I thought it the weaker part, as compared to the chemical and biological components. Finally, the material on Al Q, the new stuff to me was Powell's argument of a network of operatives, based in the Kurdish areas of Iraq, who are active throughout Europe, at least. I gather that evidence came from Guantanomo (sp) prisoners. Hard to evaluate that. But Powell tried to refer to cross validation--statements from prisoners, later confirmed by arrests. He did not make a strong case here about the ties between these operations and Iraq, but he did make an argument with an evidentiary basis which permitted evaluation. The part about ties between Al Q and Saddam dating back to the early 90s was even harder to evaluate. I'm going to take a pass on that one for the moment. I think several questions are still open: 1. Are these arguments sufficiently compelling to be willing to support an invasion made in contravention of a Security Council vote? If the UNSC agrees, unanimously, to an invasion, that's one issue; if it votes overwhelmingly in favor, that's very good and will depend, slightly, on who votes against and who abstains; if France exercises a veto and China and Russia go along, that's quite different. 2. Because of the terrible PR from this administration, Bush still has to make a convincing case to the American public, let alone to an extremely skeptical world that all this amounts to an imminent threat to US interests and the only answer is an invasion. That argument has yet to be made. And that's his administration's fault; not those recalcitrant others. 3. The Bush administration has to level with the American public as to the costs of an invasion. I mean by that the degree of anticipated jeapordy troops will be under; the estimated civilian casualties from some of the more obvious invasion strategies; the likelihood of a fairly long occupation and the dangers therein; the various scenarios for secondary consequences in the region, not just the rosy stuff of a democratic Iraq that one gets from the likes of Wolfowitz but serious, adult to adult, discussions of various scenarios. 4. Finally, some public recognition needs to be made of the jeapordy in which the Bush administration puts the US if it goes to war without deep and wide UNSC support, should we reach that point. Finally, as regards FADG, the charge has been made that folk who were skeptical of the Bush administration plans were closed minded anti-war types. My own experience with the thread has been the reverse. The pro-war types have been closed minded, have refused to deal seriously with skeptical posts, skeptical essays, and the like. I think it behooves us all to stay open minded and to respect one anothers views. Off the top of the head.