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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (25031)	1/18/2004 7:35:17 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 793716

There was no reason not to embark on a campaign of escalating pressure, starting with far more aggressive enforcement of sanctions But Steven, you are ignoring the fact that such a campaign had already been tried, and had failed completely. Remember Colin Powell's effort at "smart sanctions" in the UN? It was an effort to reimplement the sanctions regime, in such a way as to hurt the Iraqi people less (they were suffering, and the US was taking tremendous propaganda damage from Saddam's daily parade of dead babies). France and Russia squelched it. France and Russia made it perfectly, absolutely clear that they would use all their influence to see that sanctions were lifted entirely, not enforced. And the sanctions regime was falling apart. Pollack goes into the details in his book. It was very likely that sanctions were simply going to be lifted, and the US was going to have to do a massive climb-down before a triumphant Saddam. To say, "but there were other options," you have to lay them out, and make a case for them, because it's far from obvious. You can't just wish them into being againt the evidence.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (25031)	1/19/2004 10:20:49 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793716

This assumes, as so many here have, that full-scale war along the route that was taken and the status quo were the only two available options. This is simply not the case. Every single one of the options short of war necessarily required that Saddam stay in power. None of the short-of-war options include his removal; it had to be done by force fo arms. The problems with allowing Saddam to remain in power are the following: 1.- A continuing human rights disaster; 2.- Saddam's potential support of terror; 3.- Saddam's purchase of a nuke or fissile material in the black market, another intolerable disaster; 4.- Given his established record of risky adventurism, any number of things that would threaten ME stability.