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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (19981)	3/14/2003 12:55:31 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Here is something I wrote for another thread: One looks at the whole nature of a regime, and its capabilities, before assessing a strategic threat. For example, Syria has regional ambitions of reconstituting a Greater Syria out of Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan, at least, but has shown no ambition out of area. Pakistan and India vie for Kashmir, but do not show particular ambitions outside of this issue. North Korea aspires to conquer the entire peninsula, but has shown no great ambition outside of it, and,in any case, is too weak to hold territory externally. Iran primarily aspires to wrest the holy places (Mecca and Medinah) from Saudi Arabia. It has shown sympathy to the idea of Islamic ascendency, but has shown much interest in it as a goal for state action. Of dubious regimes, Iraq uniquely subscribes to an ideology of pan-Arabic ascendency, its regional ambitions a mere platform to long term goals of leading the Arab world to world hegemony. The Ba'athist Party is basically an Arabic version of Nazism, replete with racial theorizing, the adulation of violence, and the promise that the future belongs to the Arabs, who are more vital than the decadent Europeans, and superior to most other peoples. Saddam Hussein knows, of course, that he has neither the manpower nor the weaponry to challenge the United States and NATO, which is why it is imperative to develop weapons of mass destruction to alter the balance. Since he would be vulnerable to containment if he relied on state resources alone, it is also imperative to make connections with the terrorist underworld, in order to preserve deniability while setting up strikes against the West. The immediate goal is to decouple the West from the region, enough that he can intimidate the Arabian oil producing countries and gain control over their oil fields, as one aspect of leverage on the West. Israel is key, insofar as Saddam hopes to win prestige enough to lead the Arab world by taking Israel out, once and for all, thus gaining manpower, armaments, and other resources. With nuclear weapons and an active alliance with terrorist organizations, it is not inconceivable that he can wreak havoc, and attain some part of his goals. This is why Iraq is the immediate target of aggressive American interest, because he is, in fact, the greatest threat currently on the agenda........

To: jttmab who wrote (19981)	3/14/2003 9:23:47 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Yet in our brilliance, we've cut off any source of trade with North Korea except for illegal weapons trade. Ron Paul on the contrast between Korea and Vietnam: <<< ... Our 58 years in Korea have seen 33,000 lives lost, 100,000 casualties, and over a trillion dollars in today’s dollars spent. Korea is the most outrageous example of our fighting a UN war without a declaration from the U.S. Congress. And where are we today? On the verge of a nuclear confrontation with a North Korean regime nearly out of control. And to compound the irony, the South Koreans are intervening in hopes of diminishing the tensions that exist between the United States and North Korea! As bad as the Vietnam nightmare was, at least we left and the UN was not involved. We left in defeat and Vietnam remained a unified communist country. The results have been much more salutary. Vietnam is now essentially non-communist, and trade with the West is routine. We didn’t disarm Vietnam, we never counted their weapons, and so far no one cares. Peaceful relations have developed between our two countries, not by force of arms, but through trade and friendship. No United Nations, no war, and no inspections served us well – even after many decades of war and a million deaths inflicted on the Vietnamese in an effort by both the French and the United States to force them into compliance with Western demands. The contrast between Korea and Vietnam is remarkable ... >>> lewrockwell.com Tom