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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SOROS who wrote (12854)	2/11/2003 10:48:27 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

War and Wisdom By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Columnist The New York Times President Bush and Colin Powell have adroitly shown that Iraq is hiding weapons, that Saddam Hussein is a lying scoundrel and that Iraqi officials should be less chatty on the telephone. But they did not demonstrate that the solution is to invade Iraq. If you've seen kids torn apart by machine-gun fire, you know that war should be only a last resort. And we're not there yet. We still have a better option: containment. That's why in the Pentagon, civilian leaders are gung-ho but many in uniform are leery. Former generals like Norman Schwarzkopf, Anthony Zinni and Wesley Clark have all expressed concern about the rush to war. "Candidly, I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made," General Schwarzkopf told The Washington Post, adding: "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with." (The White House has apparently launched a post-emptive strike on General Schwarzkopf, for he now refuses interviews.) As for General Zinni, he said of the hawks: "I'm not sure which planet they live on, because it isn't the one that I travel." In an October speech to the Middle East Institute in Washington, he added: "[If] we intend to solve this through violent action, we're on the wrong course. First of all, I don't see that that's necessary. Second of all, I think that war and violence are a very last resort." Hawks often compare Saddam to Hitler, suggesting that if we don't stand up to him today in Baghdad we'll face him tomorrow in the Mediterranean. The same was said of Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, whom the West saw as the Hitler of the 1950's and 1960's. But as with Nasser the analogy is faulty: Saddam may be as nasty as Hitler, but he is unable to invade his neighbors. His army has degraded even since the days when Iran fought him to a standstill, and he won't be a threat to us tomorrow; more likely, he'll be dead. A better analogy is Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya, who used to be denounced as the Hitler of the 1980's. Saddam and Colonel Qaddafi are little changed since those days, but back then we reviled Mr. Qaddafi — while Don Rumsfeld was charming our man in Baghdad. In the 1980's Libya was aggressively intervening abroad, trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, losing air battles with American warplanes and dabbling in terrorism. Its terrorists bombed a Berlin nightclub patronized by American soldiers and blew up a Pan Am airliner over Scotland. Libya was never a military power on the scale of Iraq but was more involved in terror; indeed, one could have made as good a case for invading Libya in the 1980's as for invading Iraq today. But President Ronald Reagan wisely chose to contain Libya, not invade it — and this worked. Does anybody think we would be better off today if we had invaded Libya and occupied it, spending the last two decades with our troops being shot at by Bedouins in the desert? It's true, as President Bush suggested last night, that Saddam is trying to play games with us. But the inspectors proved in the 1990's that they are no dummies; they made headway and destroyed much more weaponry than the U.S. had hit during the gulf war. Even if Saddam manages to hide existing weapons from inspectors, he won't be able to refine them. And he won't be able to develop nuclear weapons. Nuclear programs are relatively easily detected, partly because they require large plants with vast electrical hookups. Inspections have real shortcomings, but they can keep Saddam from acquiring nuclear weapons. Then there's the question of resources. Aside from lives, the war and reconstruction will cost $100 billion to $200 billion. That bill comes to $750 to $1,500 per American taxpayer, and there are real trade-offs in spending that money. We could do more for our national security by spending the money on education, or by financing a major campaign to promote hybrid cars and hydrogen-powered vehicles, and taking other steps toward energy independence. So while President Bush has eloquently made the case that we are justified in invading Iraq, are we wise to do so? Is this really the best way to spend thousands of lives and at least $100 billion? nytimes.com

To: SOROS who wrote (12854)	2/14/2003 1:37:43 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Soros: I propose you rename this thread 'The JackASS Debate Porch'...No description...No Rules...Folks that want to contribute will find it...This thread has plenty of traffic (it's often in the top 20 on SI)...Its a place where folks can debate the big issues of the day or just chat and have some fun. If you look back in the last few weeks there is much more on this thread than a discussion about geopolitics or our country's leadership, etc...All of these things are important and will clearly have an impact on our investments whether we like it or not. A number of posters on this thread (like lurqer, Tigerpaw, roserrsp, Scott Mantz, Fillmore Hagen and others) have posted thoughts and articles related to the economy, currencies, investing, and the precious metals sector)...Sometimes there is a debate out here and its not always 'a golden one' <G>...I know you and Jim Willie have started a new thread which seems to be thriving and I'm glad it has a tighter focus -- sometimes that is valuable and useful (I post on a number of SI threads when I get a chance -- including one just focussed on foreign policy and another just focussed on software and high tech investing). This thread has been dynamic and it grows and evolves....who knows what it may be like a few months from now...that depends on the members of this SI community and their desire to post, debate, chat, teach each other, laugh, etc...Anyway, I would recommend removing the 'Golden' from the name of this thread and removing ALL descriptions about the thread...No names need to be included since the thread is much bigger than any one individual...JMHO. regards, -s2