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: JohnM who wrote (46014)	9/21/2002 11:06:22 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) of 281500

But the overriding case for a preemptive attack has been some rather vague arguments about an immediate threat. And that case is not even close to being made. No, it's about a "gathering threat", to quote Bush's words, that needs to be headed off. The reason given for acting now is not that Saddam will attack us immediately (though we think it's very possible that he might), but that the price for heading off the threat is about to take a steep jump upwards, i.e., Saddam will have nukes soon. You are mistating the administration's arguments because "immediate threat" is the standard that you believe they should use. It is not the standard that they actually are using, however.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next