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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. T. who wrote (69614)	4/10/2003 9:03:53 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

> But in your scenario Saddam would never have been deposed Not really. In my scenario, one of three things would have happened. Either we had a convincing case and we'd be able to get legal authority to do it. Remember that I am pushing for the rule of law and not for the current system of one nation can veto whatever it wants. I could argue that if we can't prove our case, then perhaps Saddam is not as bad as we say he is. It is all about law and order instead of selfish interest. The second case would have been that Saddam would make radical concessions to comply with the law, effectively a regime change without a change in leadership. Few people took note of this, but the reason Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 98 was that it became obvious no matter what he does the sanctions will not be removed. UNMOVIC staff were in fact CIA and MI5 staff and they were spying on Iraq. And it got to a point that we fired a missile on Saddam's car in the street but he got away. That is when he kicked them out. It's all cute to say he had 12 years to comply. But we never stated what compliance means and how soon there after the sanctions will be lifted. Nobody would have put up with that situation. Third possibility would have been to give concessions in exchange for increase in fundamental freedom. That would eventually lead either to a popular uprising, or a case similar to Soviet Union would have happened where internal change would abolish the regime. All of these situations are considerably better than declaring any nations can bomb anyone else without convincing evidence. ST