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 (122316)	12/28/2003 7:52:20 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

cnn.netscape.cnn.com This article make me think about what imminent danger may mean. This required funding, pilots, planning, access to airports, and time and the target could have been Western interests Pre-emptive action would have been needed to prevent it, and at what time beforehand should some action be planned or started by the intended victim when the enemy is 1/2 a world away and behind closed borders? If a meteor were observed to be on course for earth to arrive in 2009 would we be in imminent danger? And at what time should we take pre-emptive action or start to develop rockets that could intercept or deflect it? If Saddam had been permitted to continue undeterred to improve the range of his rockets which could then reach Israel, SA, or our ME military bases by early 2004, would that be an imminemt threat to US interests and at what time should pre-emptive action have been planned or begun ? I month before the planned assault ( an unknown date)? 2 months?. A year? Sig

To: Neocon who wrote (122316)	12/28/2003 7:53:10 AM
From: Copperfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. - Albert Einstein There is no doubt that Iraq HAD the ability to build and finance the fourth largest army in the world pre 1991. Oil revenues, legal or illegal kept Saddam in power and financed his palaces. But that is all water under the bridge now. With Iraq's power and oil production capacity limited, the country faces large still unforgiven debts. The people face huge increases in prices for food, fuel and electricity shortages. Even if the US led coalition is successful in stopping the armed insurgency they could still face a sticks and stones Intifada.

To: Neocon who wrote (122316)	12/28/2003 1:46:16 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Neocon; Re: "Iraq has the capacity to buy what it needs through oil money. Otherwise, it would not have had the fourth largest military establishment in the world." Iraq had a primitive military that was impressive only against the Iranians, and only then when the Iranians had just gone through a revolution and executed or exiled most of their military officers. It is a long standing tradition that Western countries exaggerate the military strengths of their enemies. This is a good thing. Hitler, and other dictators, tend to do the opposite, which causes vicious wars. Iraq had a powerful military only in terms of numbers. In terms of power, they were as weak as every other 3rd world military. Your logic here is based on the silly assumption that oil money can buy military power. While it is true that money and power can be interchanged, it is not true that Iraq had enough oil money to buy a powerful military. To see the simple facts, compare the Iraq GNP (even before sanctions) to the US military budget. Iraq is now, and always has been a terribly weak country. The oil producing countries do not, in general, have enough industrial strength to support 1st class militaries. Like I say above, simply compare the dollar figures. Just before Bush eliminated the incredible threat of the Iraqi military, their total GDP was about $58 billion per year. That's the whole enchilada, according to the CIA: cia.gov Compare that to the US GDP of $10,450 billion per year (from the same source). Even if Iraq threw half its GDP into military spending (they didn't) their total budget is only $29 billion, which is only a tiny fraction of what the US spends. Iraq was never a military threat to the US. And the fact that its neighbors didn't join us in the invasion is a pretty good indication that its neighbors were not afraid of the country. Re: "But the main thing is not, in fact, the ability of the Iraqis to field and supply a conventional force, but their ability to research, construct, and amass a stockpile of unconventional weapons, and particularly to use them clandestinely, either through Iraqi intelligence or proxies." After throwing up a bogus point about military strength that is completely contrary to the historical and financial records, you now segue into a claim that actually it was, after all, those WMDs that was the real threat, LOL. Hey, why don't you just drop off the silly parts of your arguments and stick with the logical ones from the beginning? Maybe you made this argument secondary because it has now become clear that Iraq did abandon their WMD programs (like Saddam said) rather than stockpiling thousands of tons of them (like Bush said). But your argument rests on the use of weapons not by Iraq, but by the concept that they end up in the hands of terrorists. Unfortunately, your argument speaks true. Bush's invasion of Iraq has, in fact, put thousands of tons of weapons into the hands of terrorists, and, in fact, they are now using those weapons to kill US soldiers. That they are regular weapons, and not WMDs is a damned good thing. I hope it stays that way, but Bush doesn't appear to have a clue as to how to arrange that. -- Carl