Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (9757)	7/24/2001 10:41:37 AM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

>>"Missiles in rogue states are not "fantasies"."<< Oh yeah Jla, we have to protect ourselves from Iraqi Scuds with a 21st century Maginot Line. Let us know when Saddam has them on Catalina Island or Cuba. How many times have I told you to think, yes think.....please keep trying; it may happen after the initial pain but don't give up. I know you can do it.

To: jlallen who wrote (9757)	7/24/2001 1:55:53 PM
From: RCMac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

>> Missiles in rogue states are not "fantasies". << Your apparent argument that rogue states are much more likely to use missiles (whose origin would be clearly known), rather than "suitcase bombs" or something carried in a shipping container, or more likely suitcase biological weapons (all of whose origins would be essentially untraceable) -- that's a full-blown fantasy for you. It just seems wrongheaded and insupportable to rank the threat of missile attacks from rogue states as a much greater and more immediate than the threat of smaller weapons carried by rogue-state sponsored terrorists. But that's the silly supposed basis for the Republican insistence on missile defense over other (more useful, IMO) measures. I say "supposed" basis because I can't wholly shake the suspicion that Republican coziness with defense contractors plays a role in Bush administration policy formation on this issue (or maybe as Tom Friedman suggests, it's just Republican "theology", with the connotations of blind faith that implies).

To: jlallen who wrote (9757)	7/24/2001 5:49:38 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

No, indeed, there are missiles in rogue states. But "rogue state" doesn't mean that the dictators of these states are crazy or suicidal. Let's take our favorite rogue state, Iraq. Saddam Hussein has had poison gas for a long time and has not hesitated to use it to put down Kurdish rebels. So why didn't he use it against our troops during the Gulf War, when we were actively trying to destroy him? Or why didn't he put poison gas on the Scuds he lobbed at Tel Aviv? Think how popular a hit would have been with the Arab world! I'll tell you why. Saddam Hussein is evil, not crazy. A poison gas attack against U.S. troops or Israeli cities would have foot a bill too long for his purse -- an immediate, devastating attack against Bagdad. Why spend billions to defend against a threat for which we already have a working defense? While ignoring real threats for which we do not have a defense?