Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: jcky who wrote (39915)	8/26/2002 10:26:25 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Claims that invading and occupying Iraq will drain the swamp of terrorists are misguided because there have been no direct link established between Iraq and a global network of terrorists known as al-Qaida And I guess Iraq has no "direct link" to Abu Nidal, either?? Come on now.... This war isn't just against Al-Qaeda.. It's against terrorism and any state that has lent support or safe haven for terrorists who have attacked the US. Iraq definitely qualifies, as do many others. Personally, I hope we don't have to get to the point where we have to invade or take direct action against Saddam. I would rather he fall due to internal pressure as Milosevic did. But if we're not willing to present the US as being deadly serious about deposing him and replacing his regime, nothing will happen. If the US shows sufficient perseverance and intent we likely won't have to take any major action. Those interests in Iraq who hide behind Saddam will recognize that he is now more of a liability than an asset. In fact, they will realize that he is "bad for business" (most of it smuggling related).. But we have to present the attitude that if the situation doesn't change soon, we'll change it ourselves. Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next