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: Neocon who wrote (106108)	7/17/2003 6:06:15 PM
From: Chas.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

here is some food for thought...... "On the NK/Iran nuke question, I think we have learned that it's not nukes that kill, it's the leaders who threaten to develop them. The lesson we need to send every thug to be is that the last thing you want the US to think is that you are developing nukes. That's the real shame of letting Saddam get away or at least not being able to identify his remains. Thus, I would not be surprised to see a combined USA/ROK SOF take out the majority of the NK leadership. This would be much more effective than taking out the nukes and leaving the leadership in place. Sort of like Liberia without the golden parachute for Charles Taylor. Both Iran and NK are making a gamble of their own. What they're hoping is that they can obfuscate and delay long enough so that they actually have nukes. (Saddam actually hoped the same.) By taking that elevated risk for a short term, they hope they can reduce the long term threat from us. Once they have nukes, they're far better able to deter us from any kind of operation against their interests; not just to deter us from invading, but also the try to perform various kinds of nuclear blackmail to cause us to interfere less with other kinds of things they do. So they're betting the farm on their ability to deny their intentions, cover up their progress, and in general muddy the waters, in hopes that they can manage to win the game by developing nukes before we make the decision to destroy their factories, or otherwise respond in a final way. Like any other big decision, it's a balance of risk and reward, and based on their calculation of how likely it is that we'll step in and do something. Right now I think both nations think the chance of us making such an attack is acceptably low, or that the overall consequences if we do are acceptably small. As you say, what's now needed is some sort of demonstration to other nations considering the same thing that changes that calculation. It has to make clear that the chance of success is low because we're willing to directly attack such facilities in order to prevent them from coming online. Israel did that to Iraq in the 1970's, and our attack on Saddam this year was partly motivated by our clear understanding that he hadn't yet given up his ambition to develop nukes. Nor is it clear yet that he had. It may be that there was no active program in place in the last year, but there's significant evidence that information was mothballed and that there was a clear intention to restart the nuclear program once the heat was off."

To: Neocon who wrote (106108)	7/17/2003 6:17:21 PM
From: spiral3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The red line around Baghdad was where it was most likely that chemical weapons would be used if he were going to do it. fine, but you were talking about him putting them all away before the war started. If we could bomb North Korea without disaster, yes. Pretty big if, our intelligence had better be top notch, not immaterial as Boot almost implies It seems that the action is being reviewed, isn't it? That is the nature of our system. thankfully yes, how deep the review goes is undetermined at this time. As for the rape charge, there is a difference between how one behaves when there is a chance to examine the matter cooly, and how one behaves when there is an existential threat. true, but thus far the extent of the existential threat is still to be determined. Where are the weapons? Of course a threatening program was not buried in the backyard. you're the one that made out like it was, not me. I never thought that Saddam would directly attack US forces, so it does not perplex me. We would have hit back to hard, and he knew that. I'm speechless...we were already invading. I always thought he would use his forces on neighbors, mostly for blackmail, and that he would use terrorist proxies against the United States. Why would he use a proxy to attack the US. Here is a guy who just about doesn't trust his family to make him dinner, let alone a Militant Islamist with a nuke, or whatever...surely We would have hit back to hard, and he knew that. By the way, he deserved to be overthrown for what he continued to do to the people of Iraq, not just for "what he had done in the past"......... When it comes to the time of the fight, you have to know why you’re fighting, and Liberation is the only gloss that any sane person can put on the horror of war. When it fades, watch out. This was mentioned by the Admin, but it was never the main reason they gave for the invasion. edit: I gotta go too.