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: tekboy who wrote (102243)	6/21/2003 2:59:01 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

--if he doesn't meet the goals by the date specified, start moving your troops out to the region at that point. Then just keep going, and strike when ready--say, spring 04 rather than spring 03. Tekboy.. As I seem to recall the events that transpired since Bush went to the UN, Bush's policy a matter of carrot and stick for both the UN and Iraq. Enforce the existing resolutions and bring the issue of Iraqi compliance/non-compliance to a conclusion, or risk unilateral US action. Both Iraq and the UN were slow to react until Bush displayed the "hammer" and risked performing an "end-run" on them.. But of course, this required the presence of US troops in the region to ensure that Saddam recognized the dire risk of not complying with UNMOVIC inspections. And has been discussed here this evening, it was the unwillingness of the Bush to wait until the heat of the summer to attack, or to permit several hundred thousand US troops to languish in their tent cities through that heat. Right or wrong, Bush felt, and I believe rightly so, that unless the US backed up its threats to carry out unilateral action against Saddam with men on the ground, Saddam (AND the UNSC with French and Russian intransigence) would turn 1441 into the same "game playing" situation that he did with UNSCOM. Keeping that many US troops spread out in Kuwait for an entire year was just going to be unacceptable. 1441 allowed 30 days for Saddam to provide ALL pertinent documentation related to his weapons programs. He failed to do, merely providing previously obtained data. 1441 also stated, I believe, that UNMOVIC would be given 90 days to INSPECT, not investigate, the unaccounted for weapons that Saddam had failed to disclose previously. By March, it was clear this was becoming just another game as it was in 1998. But the bottom line Tekboy, is that there would be no "right time" for a US invasion. It wouldn't be "right" in 2004 anymore than than it was in 2003. And the fact is that the invasion should have taken place in 1998, when Saddam completely stopped cooperating with UNSCOM inspectors and thereby committed a material breach. But a particular president was embroiled in scandal and impeacement ceremonies. Hawk@youcan'tsatisfyeveryone.gov

To: tekboy who wrote (102243)	6/21/2003 3:00:00 AM
From: KonKilo	Respond to of 281500

tekboy, The approach you have outlined is eminently sensible and no reasoning person could possibly oppose it. More the shame then, that this was not anywhere near the buildup we actually got.

To: tekboy who wrote (102243)	6/21/2003 5:46:41 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<<I think what Pollack would have had in mind was something a bit different than going up to the brink and then pausing something like the following would have been consistent with his analysis:>>> Very logical but perhaps a bit optimistic. What would happen in that extra year? 1. Saddam would have accumulated another $1 bil from illegal oil sales to Syria. 2. He would have built 5 more Palaces from that money plus the food for oil campaign and bought more up to date armament ( he was averaging 5 PPY) 3. Another year of deprivation, torture, killings, bad water and inadequate power for the Iraqis. 4. Another year of expence and frustration for Inspectors as he leads them around by the nose to various no longer used production sites to demonstrate that he was out of the WMD business as he built more mobile production labs in secret. And still the unanswered question - what happened to the previous production ? 5. He could have produced 100 more OBL wanabees in the Al Qaeda training camps and been a haven for others. 6. The US Press would have concentrated on the hidious inward looking aspects of the crooked CEO's, stock market losses, worries about medical costs, election funding, job losses, and general depression that would have continued to tank the markets And FL might be out of a job. 7. Terrorists and terrorist supporters could have said, would have said about GWB, yeah there is some kind of a cowboy, all tough talk and no action. And he will hopefully be out of a job in November and will not get involved in Military action during elections. Americans as we learned from the movies are pansies- eating junk food, watching sex movies,- so lets go ahead with procuring nuclear armaments- they wont do anything except talk. Sig@otherscenarios.com

To: tekboy who wrote (102243)	6/21/2003 9:00:52 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

The Iraq War as Danse Macabre _____________________________________ Saddam and the WMD Mystery By HAROLD A. GOULD* June 21, 2003 counterpunch.org <<...If the WMDs are never found, then what has taken place must be understood as one of the more bizarre manifestations ever witnessed of mutual deceit being pursued on a truly international scale. On one side we have the Bush administration, determined to wage war upon Iraq and Saddam Hussein for a host of genuine and spurious reasons, willing to distort and embellish the intelligence data to whatever degree necessary to justify it, and prepared to take whatever sweat might follow once the dimensions of the deception become public in the aftermath. On the other side we have the Saddam Hussein regime, willing to risk everything for the sole purpose of clinging to a mythologized political image of itself as the premier radical Arab power with the capacity and the guile to successfully defy the authority both of the American superpower and the United Nations. If the facts as we currently know them hold up, the Iraq war will undoubtedly take its place as a classic case of a symbiotically intertwined danse macabre between two nation-states whose addiction to the trappings of political power and jingoistically driven self-importance outweighed all considerations of measured reflection on the costs and consequences of impulsive political behavior. Thousands of dead and wounded innocents and billions of dollars worth of ruined infrastructure are the price that has been paid for the free play of this dueling exercise in over-inflated national egos...>> ___________________________________________ *Harold Gould is a Visiting Scholar in the Center for South Asian Studies at the University of Virginia. Email: 102062.477@compuserve.com.

To: tekboy who wrote (102243)	6/21/2003 9:56:48 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

US general condemns Iraq failures ______________________________________________ Ed Vulliamy in New York Sunday June 22, 2003 The Observer observer.co.uk <<...One of the most experienced and respected figures in a generation of American warfare and peacekeeping yesterday accused the US administration of 'failing to prepare for the consequences of victory' in Iraq. At the end of a week that saw a war of attrition develop against the US military, General William Nash told The Observer that the US had 'lost its window of opportunity' after felling Saddam Hussein's regime and was embarking on a long-term expenditure of people and dollars for which it had not planned. 'It is an endeavour which was not understood by the administration to begin with,' he said. Now retired, Nash served in the Vietnam war and in Operation Desert Storm (the first Gulf War) before becoming commander of US forces in Bosnia and then an acclaimed UN Civil Affairs administrator in Kosovo. He is currently a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, specialising in conflict prevention. In one of the most outspoken critiques from a man of his standing, Nash said the US had 'failed to understand the mindset and attitudes of the Iraqi people and the depth of hostility towards the US in much of the country'. 'It is much greater and deeper than just the consequences of war,' he added. 'It comes from 12 years of sanctions, Israel and Palestinians, and a host of issues.' As a result, he says, 'we are now seeing the re-emergence of a reasonably organised military opposition - small scale, but it could escalate.'...>>

To: tekboy who wrote (102243)	6/22/2003 11:00:35 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think what Pollack would have had in mind was something a bit different than going up to the brink. . . Now that's sensible foreign policy. Unlike . . . . Good to see you posting again.

To: tekboy who wrote (102243)	6/22/2003 11:39:25 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

How do you deal with the possibility that Saddam would have obtained fissile material or bomb(s) during '03 or '04 while the policy you describe would have been executed? How would Bush have avoided the Demos tail/dog charges in the heat of an upcoming election? Would anyone in the Mideast be listening to his roadmap absent the war? He might very well be pissing into the wind now, but it would have been a huge joke without Iraq. And the wackos in Iran are paying attention to us now, not a bad thing. Everyone is paying a lot more attention to us now. At some point, the notion will creep into the various actors' thick skulls that we wish for a stable ME and that stability is in their best interest. The sad fact is that we needed to re-establish our credibility after Clinton. Afghanistan was like punishing nursery school kids--it was probably perceived as such in the ME. Taking out Saddam made them listen. It has created momentum that Bush needs to exploit or lose. Waiting would have been disastrous. C2@fliesinointment.com