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: paul_philp who wrote (81926)	3/13/2003 9:11:53 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Good column by Saul Singer. Excerpt: Bush has been assailed for not making the case for his revolutionary foreign policy, particularly in contrast with his more eloquent partner, Tony Blair. The criticism is, by and large, unfair. The only real difference between Blair's case and Bush's tends to be the inability of some listeners to attribute to Bush a similar level of sincerity and intelligence. The missing case is not the one for ousting Saddam, but for the new order that the war in Iraq is supposed to build. Think of it this way: Saddam is like the pillar of a wreck that needs to be torn down before building something nicer and more sturdy. Many people agree that the wreck is bad, but they say it is not that dangerous, or if it is, why not start by tearing down a more central pillar, such as Iran (assuming it is more engaged in international terrorism than Iraq). Bush argues strongly that the wreck is dangerous and only will become more so. He is less forthcoming on why start with Iraq, but there is a ready explanation: It is where he thought it would be easiest to get a "permit" from the international community. What Bush doesn't say but could is that it does not matter much which pillar you tear down first, what matters is to start, as opposed to continuing to live with the wreck. Bush's problem is that if he elaborates too much on the global architecture he has in mind, it could complicate his application for a building permit. Bush wants to rebuild on a grand scale, but has been applying only to begin destroying the existing structure on the grounds that it is a menace to the neighborhood. Ultimately, however, Bush cannot hide his grander plans in order to get this one permit. Like a developer who knows that the zoning board can be swayed by public pressure, Bush has to do more than hint at how Iraq fits into the larger picture. Worth reading in full. jpost.com

To: paul_philp who wrote (81926)	3/13/2003 11:47:54 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<<This new level of concern about Iraq is caused by an accumulation of intelligence including troubling new details that focus on three areas:>>>> <<< Specific new evidence indicates that Iraqi activity in the Western desert shows the strong likelihood Scud missiles are hidden there. These missiles could easily reach Israel carrying chemical or biological warheads which could draw Israel into any war >>> The US has had over 1050 missiles hidden underground since the 1960's. Saddam is sneaky and has money. so odds are high he has similar missile installations, and their location may be known to the US . It may be considered too risky to reveal the details to the UN other than to say "we have the proof" <<< Detailed new intelligence from the southern Iraqi oil fields shows that many of the 700 wells have now been wired with explosives. These explosives appear to be connected to a central command post, so Saddam could easily set the wells ablaze. >>>> Seems strange we have no way to stop that. On his side the no-fly zone, I assume. Another ecological disaster in the making? What do the Polticians make of it. Will it demonstrate how evil Saddam is, or will the US get blamed for it.? Would an EMP bomb set off the whole rig, or just burn out the connections? Am at a loss on that one Sig <<, Near the border with Kuwait, where 135,000 U.S. troops are now stationed, recent surveillance indicates Iraqi artillery batteries have been moved dangerously close. The artillery is capable of firing shells filled with poison gas>>>> Not a major problem if the wind is right