Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dervish
Are you suggesting we should invade and occupy SA? Would not the rest of OPEC boycott us in response? Are you saying that as a result of that that the U.S. would be thrown into economic and social chaos, thereby bringing about unity?

Or, are you saying we should take punitive action against SA because of the terrorist activity originating there? Again, would not all of OPEC respond in support of SA?

Look at Iran. How forceful have we been there, other than talk? What is the cost of being more forceful? What is the cost of not being?

North Korea?

Russia?

China?

There is always a grab bag of options that need tending to. Each has its pluses and minuses. Thanks to Clinton our options are more limited than before.
75 posted on 06/25/2005 1:32:04 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: Mind-numbed Robot

“Are you suggesting we should invade and occupy SA? Would not the rest of OPEC boycott us in response? “


No to invasion and occupation. I merely said if we had to we surely could. And while I don’t recommend the Chinese model, there is plenty of ground in between the current model in Iraq and the killing you say China would commit.


Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


“Are you saying that as a result of that that the U.S. would be thrown into economic and social chaos, thereby bringing about unity?”


No. I am saying that if circumstances required US invasion of SA, such circumstances including a total collapse of the US economy due to their actions, or a terror attack with mass casualties which dwarf 9/11, people would be united in a way they have not been following 9/11 and US invasion of Iraq.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


”Or, are you saying we should take punitive action against SA because of the terrorist activity originating there? Again, would not all of OPEC respond in support of SA?”


Yes. We should treat SA as Pres Bush first outlined: State’s that harbor terrorists are not to be tolerated. We should stop buying oil from SA. We should not allow their citizens in. We should pursue their terror funding relentlessly. We should have extremely chilly diplomacy, not Abdullah hand holding at the ranch. We should be outspoken in support of their dissidents and reformers and condemn their lack of human rights.


Will OPEC react punitively? I doubt it. They need to sell their oil. Also there are non-OPEC sources.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC#Members


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


”Look at Iran. How forceful have we been there, other than talk? What is the cost of being more forceful? What is the cost of not being?


North Korea?


Russia?


China?


There is always a grab bag of options that need tending to. Each has its pluses and minuses. Thanks to Clinton our options are more limited than before.”


It is silly to lump states like Russia in with China, NK, and Iran. Russia is an ally with more freedom than the others.


It is silly to lump China and NK in with Iran. Non-nuclear States are in a different position than those that are already nuclear. I believe we should be much more forceful including military options in Iran. Once a country goes nuclear the available options are much more limited. Hence the barrel we are over in NK. To allow Iran to go nuclear would be a grave mistake of the scale we made in dividing Europe with USSR after WWII. It would define an era. The radical terrorist nature of Iran should not be underestimated.




77 posted on 06/26/2005 6:44:47 PM PDT by dervish (multilateralism is the lowest common denominator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson