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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (7536)	11/18/1998 5:37:00 PM
From: George Papadopoulos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

>Saddam periodically tests the waters to see how much he can get away with. Iraq wants the sanctions lifted. Again and again they have asked for a definite timetable. 8 years have passed since the war ended. Their people continue to suffer. >Each time he does, the US and allies have to draw the proverbial line in the sand and maintain the status quo. I think we give up something to our allies to buy their support as each crisis. I do not have facts to give you but I am sure the Russians, the Chinese and the French don't go along with this without gaining anything at all. >While this may seem like Saddam jerking the US around, it's hard to deny that the status quo is more favorable to the US than it is to Saddam. I read today in the paper there has been at least $1billion spent on the deployment so far. I find it hard to accept this while the Iraqi people suffer every day... 1) Anyone can get access to weapons of mass destruction (now that's scary) 2) There is absolutely no consistency in US foreign policy >Partly true, though not entirely. Most states can obtain such weapons, but are apparently convinced that the price they would pay for using them would negate any hypothetical advantage which might be gained. This is one area in which US policy has been reasonably consistent and fairly effective. Nobody has done it yet. I was referring to individuals and terrorist groups. Guys like Osama Bin Laden etc. >To say that US policy has been inconsistent, you would have to point to an analogous situation which has been handled differently. Did you have one in mind? One that comes to mind regarding Iraq is the way that the US has tried to deal with the anti Sadamm internal opposition. Never really backed a particular group with enough money to make a difference. I believe they even ended up rescuing some opposition Kurd people with helicopters once. There was not a well thought out policy of what to do with them and certainly whatever was done it was done poorly. The result is Sadamm starting and ending crises at a $1bilion dollar a pop while his people continue to suffer and oil hits $12 a barrell! George