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: carranza2 who wrote (75216)	2/18/2003 2:58:53 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Carranza, We've had these discussions before. I don't think we have anything to add and I don't see your questions as increasing the likelihood of that happening. The point of those lines was to offer ever so brief opening comments to Mike, the hostile poster. As for your argument that Saddam is a future threat, the best counter is the Mearshimer and Walt piece. I would advance those arguments as mine but I don't care to go back and spend the time on that. I did read Pollack and I did read M&W and considered, on the point of containment and the arguments about Saddam as a future threat to containment, that M&W had the better arguments. Why not disarm him before he gets nukes? It's clear that the Bush folk don't want disarmament; they want, in that horrible set of words, "regime change." And that will produce a great deal more instability in the ME. Whether that instability is more to be worried about than not dealing with Saddam right now, depends on a great many other supporting arguments that you and I clearly disagree about. Not worth redoing them for one another because there is no likelihood, at least so far as I can tell, that we will change one another's minds.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next