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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (56155)	7/25/2004 10:23:19 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794009

No other coherent policy to deal with the problem was being advanced anywhere by anyone. I'm sorry. Since when are outsiders supposed to package coherent policies for administrations? Maybe with a bow? You talk to a variety of smart people, experts, you bounce things off of them, you take their critiques seriously and factor them into your plans. Nobody had any constructive suggestions for getting containment to work, or solving the problem any other way. However, if you frame the problem that way and go in assuming that there is a problem that containment can't solve, then what I offered probably wouldn't have mattered. Part of the utility of the voices is to help to correctly frame the problem.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (56155)	7/26/2004 6:01:27 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794009

Listened to whom? to what? No other coherent policy to deal with the problem was being advanced anywhere by anyone. Just a "DONT DO ANYTHING" from the left and Saddam's payees, with tacit agreement from the realists at State. Nobody had any constructive suggestions for getting containment to work, or solving the problem any other way. What exactly was the problem? You seem unwilling to accept that Saddam was not in fact posing any immediate threat to anyone. The problem of dealing with Saddam was a subset of a larger problem: the need to develop a new global “rule set”, to use the Barnett expression, capable of confronting the linked problems of dictatorships, failed states, and terrorism. We backed away from that challenge – which would, like most important tasks, have been difficult – and based our moves on short term domestic political considerations. We rushed when there was no imperative need for immediate action, and no we are dithering in the Sudan, where there is real need of immediate action, and in Iran, where the stakes are higher than they ever were in Iraq. There’s an interesting article in the current Foreign Affairs, arguing that containment was actually working. Worth reading, if you don’t mind challenging your preconceived notions.