Why Iraq can't be deterred

[CyberGnu]

No, we just jumped on your conclusion that since he was a member of a think tank, he couldn't have an agenda

[Drake Tungsten]

I never meant to say that he couldn't have an agenda. I just thought that it is pretty unlikely. Still do.

[Kepler]

Man, I can't log off for even a couple hours without missing the fun. ;-)

I merely meant that Pollack has a book out from Random House called The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. That doesn't leave much to the imagination to see which way he's leaning. I should have used the term "objectivity" rather than "veracity."

I didn't mean anything about Pollack's association with think tanks, and indeed until seeing that he has a book out from Rand didn't really know of any, other than the Council on Foreign Relations. Which I guess makes him one of the Illuminati, but I shoulda guessed that -- he's a Yalie.

[CyberGnu]

I thought he was from MIT?

Wait, maybe that is his PhD.

Kepler, did you actually mention think tanks before Drake did?

[axi]

Announcement from the US State Department concerning theSaban Center for Middle East Policy

Note that the sponsor, Haim Saban, is a Jew and that the director of the center is a former US ambassador to Israel.

[Sirotnikov]

Well come on, after all, every Jew that's critical of Israel is a self-hating Jew.

Just because I think that someone is wrong, and may have a wrong ideology or a motief, doesn't mean it's not legitimate.

Furthermore, I don't recall ever calling anyone self-hating Jew.

And you're jewish anyways (don't deny), and you disapprove of Israeli actions.

Imagine pro-palestinian commentators saying about you "he's jewish so he doesn't count".

[Kepler]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Kepler, did you actually mention think tanks before Drake did?

Nope, that was news to me.

Pollack has a BA from Yale and a PhD from MIT. His briefings with Bush must be entertaining.

Pollack: "... and thus there is no question that the United States military could conquer Iraq, destroy the Republican Guard, extirpate Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction, and hunt down Saddam. Do you have any questions, Mr. President?"

Bush: "I like horsies!"

[GePap]

Pollocks arguments are bollocks, through and through:

Fine, Saddam has miscalculated several times on the actions of others- though i hardly expect the man, or any leader, to be omniscient and always know what the otehr guy will do. The question is, what future miscalculatiuon is Saddam likely to make in the future? One like thinking he would get away or have somehing substantial to gain in giving WMD to terrorist, or using WMD against an enemy?

Lets take his assertion on Kuwait, that he should have waited to have a nuke to invade, which Pollocks includes to make us think that if Saddam got a nuke, then he would invade again: well, first of all, you don't invade with a nuke, you need an army: we have US troops in Kuwait, the Kuwaitis have a better army now,and Saddam a worse and weaker one- so Iraq would be unble to conquer Kuwait in 2 days anymore, i at all. Given this, how would this nuclear blackmail work? Would he threaten to use nukes vs. Israel or Saudi Aarabia unless we left? Well, then don't we and the Israelis simply state openyl, you use them, your dead?

The fact that Hussein has miscalculated when it came to the use of military force doesn't mean that he can't be dettered if the other sides intentions are made obviously clear from the start- something that has never been true, and was not true in any of the example he gave. Add to this the fact that Saddam didn't 'miscalcualte' during the Gulf War on the use of WMD... how come Pollock didn't include that?

[Drake Tungsten]

Pollack: "... and thus there is no question that the United States military could conquer Iraq, destroy the Republican Guard, extirpate Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction, and hunt down Saddam. Do you have any questions, Mr. President?"

Bush: "I like horsies!"

Announcement from the US State Department concerning theSaban Center for Middle East Policy

Note that the sponsor, Haim Saban, is a Jew and that the director of the center is a former US ambassador to Israel.

Your link said that the Saban Center is sponsored by the Brookings Institute, an excellent think tank. From what I read, it doesn't seem like the Saban Center has much of an agenda.

Just because the sponsor is a Jew doesn't make the think tank a tool of Israeli propaganda...

And I was the one who brought think tanks up. Rather unfortunate in retrospect, as we became fixated on them even though they were rather inconsequential to my argument.

[axi]

The most astonishing fact is that it's director is a former US ambassador to Israel, which means a person of the complete trust of the Israeli state.

As somebody here in Greece is used to say:

Have you grasped the innuendo, big fella?

[Drake Tungsten]

Do some research on the Brooking's Institute and then come back and discuss this. I don't have much respect for your unsubstantiated speculation...