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 (75264)	2/18/2003 4:45:43 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Each argument is coherent in itself and depends on ones interpretation of a whole slew of supporting data. I don't find M&W compelling, but I can respect the argument. Disagree. The weakness of the M&W argument lies in the lack of coherent analysis with respect to the options available to Saddam should he become armed with nukes. His options are broadened considerably with nukes even if one accepts the dubious notion that he is a rational calculator of risk. Deterrence is unlikely to work. This is what M&W say about Saddam and nukes: But what if Saddam invaded Kuwait again and then said he would use nuclear weapons if the United States attempted another Desert Storm? Again, this threat is not credible. If Saddam initiated nuclear war against the United States over Kuwait, he would bring U.S. nuclear warheads down on his own head. Given the choice between withdrawing or dying, he would almost certainly choose the former. Thus, the United States could wage Desert Storm II against a nuclear-armed Saddam without precipitating nuclear war. Ironically, some of the officials now advocating war used to recognize that Saddam could not employ nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. In the January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs, for example, National Security Advisor Rice described how the United States should react if Iraq acquired WMD. “The first line of defense,” she wrote, “should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence—if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.” If she believed Iraq’s weapons would be unusable in 2000, why does she now think Saddam must be toppled before he gets them? For that matter, why does she now think a nuclear arsenal would enable Saddam to blackmail the entire international community, when she did not even mention this possibility in 2000? Recall that M&W's major premise is that Saddam is a rational risk calculator. Ask yourself this: As such a cold-blood risk taker, would he be justified in believing that the US would never nuke him because we would refuse to risk the radioactive contamination of Kuwait's and Saudi Arabia's oil fields--perhaps up to 20% of the world's supply--for the next few decades simply because he took them over? I dare say he would be playing good poker if he ignored our alleged deterrence under these circumstances. He is fully justified in thinking that it is not him but us who would be deterred from using nukes. He can make his threats to contaminate the oilfields real, and we'd be powerless to act unless we were willing to risk a worldwide Depression to deter him. He would be probably correct in thinking that we would not. If you assume that he is not a rational risk-taker--the better view, in my opinion--what does that do to the M&W position? Eviscerate it, I think.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (75264)	2/18/2003 4:52:14 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

"with arguments for leaving Saddam alone" The people who do not want to immediately invade Iraq are not indicating their wish to"leave Saddam alone". Speaking for myself, I want disarmament and let us start with Saddam. It is the process not the objective in dispute. Many feel the need to discuss and have input. Maybe there is a peaceful way of doing things and we can work together and reduce the number of competing factions. It's called Consensus building. It is not so black and white. We agree on more then we disagree. SOmebody start a list. #1 everybody wants to disarm Saddam. #2 everybody wants the Iraq citizens' lot to be improved. #3 Rascal@ sunisout.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (75264)	2/18/2003 8:45:24 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

If you can come up with a better explanation of why these anti-war marchers believe that America's actions (and Israel's) are so desperately their business, but the Taliban and Saddam deserve to be left to their own devices, please, have at it. Good thing I didn't sit down, because if anything is clear with this post it is that you don't agree with me. It's not up to the marchers to offer an acceptable rationale for another course of action. The need only say no or yes. Demonstrations are rather like Bush's binary logic; that's why neither are very suitable for actually fashioning foreign policy. But they can say, in the bluntest of terms, do this (in a binary logic) or don't do this (again, in a binary logic). Give women the vote; get out of Vietnam; stop racism in the US. In this case, I read these particular demonstrations, at least their size as saying something like, we are not persuaded. You guys with the power want to go to war. You have to persuade us that we should do so. A great many of those demonstrations were, after all, held in democracies, putative or otherwise. And they were meant to pass a message. I would not read that message as no war, no way, though some demonstrators probably had that on their signs. Rather, we are here in such large numbers because you have yet to persuade us and there is too much at stake for us to any longer remain silent. So all these discussions we have here, as helpful as they are, about what should be done in Iraq, are beside the point for the demonstrators, because the leaders of their countries simply haven't made the case. Which is to say Bush has not made the case. If Bush had, a political leader as sharp and articulate as Tony Blair would have no trouble making it. Now you may well reply that the signs and such at demonstrations didn't say, please persuade us. Instead they said things like no war, don't invade Iraq, etc. Of course, but the question one needs to ask is what would it take for those demonstrations to diminish to insignificance. I think it would happen if the present incumbent of the White House could sell the deal. He has not done so to date. As for the Taliban insertion in that sentence, I assume that was a typo. You meant to type Al Q. But now having typed it, it does occur to me that had the US continued after Al Q after 9-11,and not taken a wrong turn into Iraq, the same kind of backing found for the Afghanistan campaign would likely still be around. Assuming, of course, the Bush folk could handle the diplomacy of all that with a bit better skill than to date.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (75264)	2/24/2003 2:28:12 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine....Did you see the latest Mark Steyn...? He takes no prisioners....especially Chirac.... Message 18609711 M. le Président's imperiousness >>>>>>The papers were even better. I particularly enjoyed this editorial from Romania's Expres: "We can ask ourselves what France and Germany did in 50 years of communism for all the countries in the Eastern bloc. The answer is simple: nothing else than business! To us, who were moaning in the prisons of communism, they sent only friendly greetings ... Communism wrung our neck while the honourable democracies issued communiqués. And now they are surprised that all the countries in the former communist bloc do not give a damn about obsolete stratagems of France and Germany."<<<<<<<<<<<