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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (45874)	9/21/2002 3:51:59 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) of 281500

We used to think that a threat was only a threat if it was backed with an army and navy. Post 9/11, what is the nature of a threat? Doesn't the subject bear some rethinking in light of events? And if Saddam is not a threat, how come the entire Arab world thinks he won the Gulf War? How dare he threaten to nuke Israel every other day, if he's no threat? Who is he training at Salmon Pak, and what for? How about an answer to these questions? The Bush folk continue to feel they can ask for an invasion without evidence that an immediate threat exists. These questions simply ask them to put their evidence on the table. The New Republic article Scott posted about disagreements within the administration over the factual basis, not the policy basis, for such an invasion, only increases the amount of skepticism

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next