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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (45707)	5/4/1999 5:07:00 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

brees, since I am in a rush to wrap things up, I merely skimmed, but I didn't immediately identify anything I disagreed with. I will be on later tonight and respond in greater detail...

To: one_less who wrote (45707)	5/4/1999 6:25:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Brees, you need to send that to Schuh not Neo. You are preaching to the choir. Schuh likes killing Muslims to cover Bubba's butt. Now Bubba is killing Christians to even it up and has disowned the Jews. I guess it is hate everybody all the time season in the White House.

To: one_less who wrote (45707)	5/5/1999 1:28:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

brees--- As promised, I went back and read through your post carefully. I still agree with most of it, or have cavils so small I will not waste time with them. I will address the points where my disagreement or reservation is significant: 6)--Why would any new Iraqi government have different national objectives? It too would want Kuwait, be anti-Israel, be trying to develop weapons equal to those of its neighbors and potential enemies to have defenses against Iran and Turkey (which already bombs Kurdish Iraq now), etc., etc. Nations' interests don't change. Since it observable that the major parties have significant foreign policy disagreements, and that factions within each party may differ even further, it is incorrect to say that a change of regime is hopeless, and that they would continue to pursue the same foreign policy as Saddam Hussein, in the same way. Maybe, but probably not. NATO expansion is to please central European ethnic voters, Cuban policy is determined by Cubans in Miami, policies towards oil rich Azerbaijan, by the Armenian lobby, invading Haiti by the Black Caucus in Congress, and so on. Domestic politics influences these decisions, but usually it is debate within policy circles which is the real determinant. There was a consensus within these circles in favor of NATO expansion, for example. I myself argued in several forums for it.There were those against it in conservative circles, but I was in the mainstream of Republican, and even conservative, thinking. I agree however, that we should primarily be a "beacon", not a policeman. We cannot afford to write a blank check on intervention. I am a cautious interventionist, which means that I think we should use our good offices and influence, and sometimes supply advice and materiel,and even sometimes threaten, but that we should rarely directly engage in military action, and with care when we do. If Saddam is such a threat to the whole world, then why is the whole world against us (bombing) Saddam was quite a threat, I do believe, but is not so much any longer, and in any case not enough to continue this inconclusive and devastating policy. We are prepared to handle another thrust by Iraq, we should probably be satisfied with that for now, and give the population a break. How is bombing Iraq supposed to change Iraq's government? I agree that it is not doing much good, and should end, but I wanted to say that the government was not per se relying on the civilian populace, but hoping for dissension within the ruling elite. It appears that there was some, but that Saddam is too good at detecting danger, and to ruthless about self- protection, for the conspirators to have succeeded. Saddam gassed his own people. Didn't our government also do that at WACO? Waco was a horrible botch, for which there should have been greater accountability, but it is not comparable to what Saddam did to the Kurds. Also, it is silly to make vague references to atrocities from over a century ago in order to undermine our right to judge current atrocities. World War II ended up simply replacing Hitler with Stalin. Stalin had already committed most of his atrocities before that. World War Two was worth it by any measure. Unilaterally attacking Iraq is totally unconstitutional...Why is it easier to make war than to cut taxes. By tradition, the President has a great deal of leeway in the conduct of foreign affairs, including the use of force. That is why there has never been a challenge to a mission of this kind on Constitutional grounds. Not too many points of disagreement for such a lengthy post, I think...

To: one_less who wrote (45707)	5/5/1999 1:45:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

brees--- A couple of brief supporting comments: There's no oil shortage either. At the time of Desert Storm, there was more reason to worry about Iraq getting control of the Arabian Peninsula. However, if the Caspian fields pan out as expected, the salience of the Middle East in world affairs will dwindle significantly. There is still much to be done to get that oil, and there are significant pipeline concerns, so it will be awhile before there is no need to be concerned about proven reserves that are pumping, and we will continue to have security issues in the area, very likely. But the pressure will substantially ease, especially if there are redundant pipelines... --"Saddam could feed his people if he cared instead of using money to buy weapons." According to just war doctrine, upon which the position of the Catholic Bishops is based, there must be proportionality,a reasonable chance of success, and the deaths of non- combatants should be avoided as much as is humanly possible. We learned a long time ago that Saddam was prepared to let his people suffer rather than yield, and therefore we have violated all three tests merely through the embargo... Secretary of State Madeleine Albright didn't deny such figures when she explained that "Yes, we think the price is worth it" when asked on CBS 60 Minutes program (5/11/96) if maintaining the blockade was worth the death of half a million children. This is unconscionable!