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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (36941)8/11/2002 1:13:42 AM
From: jcky  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
<< Interesting way you have of putting things there, jcky...that if Saddam stages an unprovoked WMD attack on Tel Aviv, then Sharon may become the loose cannon by responding? >>

Unprovoked? Do you call a march toward Baghdad by American troops unprovoked from Saddam's point of view. Now that really is an interesting way of looking at this situation. I'm certainly not defending Saddam here, but if we are determined to invade Iraq then we better be realistic about the possible consequences. And right now there is a river, named de Nile, running through Washington.

<< It is by saying things like this, now, that Sharon hopes to reestablish Israel's deterrent, and not have Iraqi scuds with chemical warheads landing in Tel Aviv in the first place. >>

There are two points I would like to make here, Nadine.

The first point is that Saddam wouldn't give a hoot what happens if Washington is going to corner and exterminate him. What does he have to lose by employing his scuds with chemical weapons on Israel if he perceives there is no diplomatic outlet available? He's a dead man, either way. Ironically, one of the options left for the resolution of this impasse is for Washington to guarantee the safe harbor of Saddam if the US elects to invade Iraq (in exchange for his restraint on using WMDs).

The second point is that if Israel believes Saddam is deterrable by making this threat now then it is very possible that he can be contained. And containment is a more viable option than invasion without a legitimate reason for pre-emptive war.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News