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: Hawkmoon who wrote (40523)	8/28/2002 5:18:11 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Question: If America shouldn't attack Saddam before he obtains weapons of mass destruction, when should we ever attack a dictator which threatens world peace? Will we be safer to attack in 3-5 years when he has nuclear weapons? Will we be safer to let him laugh at our weapons inspectors, and attack after he launches WMD against Kuwaiit, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Israel? Should we just hope for the best. Hope this madman comes to his senses one day? The case to attack Iraq and remove Saddam from power is a far easier one to make then the one President Clinton made in Kosovo to remove Milosovic. Hussein is a much greater threat then Milosovic ever was. Being the world's only superpower places a unique responsibility on our shoulders. Sometimes we must lead where others are unable or unwilling to.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next