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 (47485)	9/27/2002 1:28:32 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Here's Pollack's conclusory comment in the NYT piece: Given Mr. Hussein's history of catastrophic miscalculations and his faith that nuclear weapons can deter not him but us, there is every reason to believe that the question is not one of war or no war, but rather war now or war later a war without nuclear weapons or a war with them. I suspect that this is the ultimate point of the book, but of course I may be wrong as I haven't read it. I can't imagine that he would have anything too different from that sweeping statement. Moreover, it seems to fit in fairly well with the Bush Administration's rationales. Does it ultimately make any diffrence that Bush has not articulated the rationalization as elegantly as Pollack if the conclusion is the same? Bush has a vastly different audience, and he may very well be playing to it instead of to those few who follow Pollack. At this point of the argument, I suspect that you will note that we have no post-invation, post-removal plan. And I would agree with you, but would counter with the argument that the danger may very well outweigh the need for any carefully though out post-invasion plans.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next