SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JohnM who wrote (81253)3/11/2003 3:09:10 PM
From: carranza2   of 281500
 
You said this the other day when I asked you the same question as KLP asks you now, i.e., what constitutes an imminent threat on Saddam's part:

Message 18676739

I'm deliberately leaving the issue of nuclear weapons off the table because I see that as a part of a bigger issue of finding global means of containing their spread. The UNSC simply has to be a part of that.

The language has changed a bit when you reply to the same question posed by KLP. It's now:

Third, no one now argues they have a near term nuclear capability.

Perhaps you now realize that it is folly to leave the nuclear issue "off the table" in any way shape or form when considering the immediacy of Saddam's threat. I hope so. I think Bush would be remiss in his Constitutional duties if he did so.

Unfortunately, your second formulation of what constitutes an immediate threat as respects nuclear weapons gives me plenty of reason to pause, too. I'll refer you to Pollack for my reasons which I assume you reject out of hand as well.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News