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 (124395)	2/5/2004 2:29:11 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi tb, Long time no see. It now seems clear that the realist strategy of containing Hussein was working better than most people thought, and could have been sustained for a good while longer without incident. This is good news in general, but death for a policy of preemption – which depends, as the National Security Strategy itself acknowledged, on "timely, accurate information" that can produce "a common assessment of the most dangerous threats." We live in interesting times... --fl

To: tekboy who wrote (124395)	2/5/2004 3:57:45 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Even senior military leaders responsible for defending Baghdad, for example, thought their troops were equipped with chemical weapons -- not their own units, to be sure, but the ones to either side. This has been pretty widely repeated, with the one repeating it hastily saying, it was like a twilight zone. Perhaps so. But it stretches one's imagination to believe that these "generals" who were stationed side by side never spoke to one another or ever coordinated any strategies with each other. All of them were ignorant of what the others were doing, or what weapons they had. This claim, as with so many others, strikes me as utter nonsense. The only way I will believe it is if someone besides the US or Britain who is trustworthy interviews these guys and comes out with the same thing. Even then, I would find it hard to believe if the "generals" were just going back to be locked up in US or British custody.

To: tekboy who wrote (124395)	2/5/2004 3:59:32 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hello, stranger. This is good news in general, but death for a policy of preemption. Yes, a President gets to cry "wolf!" only once. I have not fully understood the need to declare that the US will engage in the preemptive use of force since the mere act of declaration is unnecessarily provocative. Why say what you can do if everyone already knows you can do it? The article in the latest FA suggesting an international law basis for intervention under circumscribed circumstances certainly suggests that the Bushies are nevertheless among the avant garde on this point. I'm sure you agree. vbg