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: Sun Tzu who wrote (140537)	7/15/2004 9:33:16 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<<. Capability: Intent alone is not enough; you have to show that Saddam had the capacity to do great damage and that there was no other way to prevent his access beyond this war. 2. Urgency: You have to show that this was an urgent matter that could not be delayed even for a few months to allow the inspectors finish their job or to plan for some kind of assassination/revolution over the next few years. 3. Cost/benefits: You have to show that the most likely damage (not a hypothetical worst case) that Saddam could have done was far worse than the most likely damage of this war (for example the increase in terrorist recruits for at least a generation). >>> You should get some Interesting responses to these what- if situations. Under Capabilities: Assuming the Inspections were ended and Saddam was left free to do whatever he pleased. He would then know that neither the UN or any other Nation had the guts to attack him even if he gassed his own people , no matter what nature of weapons he could accumulate,or tried to kill an American President. He could provide billions to anyone like OBL or the Taliban to support attacks on the US, he could pressure Syria to to support his plans. He would be a bigger threat than ever to Iran and SA and Kuwait. We would have no valid argument left that would support our no-fly operations, and as he rapidly grew stronger would have to increase our Military bases in the region to protect out allies and investments in the region. Sig

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (140537)	7/15/2004 10:36:09 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

1. Capability: Intent alone is not enough; you have to show that Saddam had the capacity to do great damage and that there was no other way to prevent his access beyond this war. 2. Urgency: You have to show that this was an urgent matter that could not be delayed even for a few months to allow the inspectors finish their job or to plan for some kind of assassination/revolution over the next few years. 3. Cost/benefits: You have to show that the most likely damage (not a hypothetical worst case) that Saddam could have done was far worse than the most likely damage of this war (for example the increase in terrorist recruits for at least a generation). Yes, you would have to make those arguments, and someone did - Ken Pollack, in The Threatening Storm. You have also forgotten 4. Cost/benefits of continuing containment - a policy both very expensive, a major incitement to terrorists in its own right (why did OBL found AQ?) and clearly failing. It is a false dichotomy to weigh all the heavy costs and risks of overthrowing Saddam against some happy do-nothing, business-as-usual outcome, or more unlikely still, against some fairy story where the omnipotent UN inspectors manage the job. The only outcome of more inspections would have been to find nothing, and make the US back down. Huge loss of face for the US, triumph for Saddam. The other options in Iraq, when followed out realistically to their most likely results, were not good at all.