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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (18904)	2/15/2002 6:23:36 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

My tuppence worth is that the Afghanistan situation will worsen considerably if we attack Iraq. Those guys will play on it for sure. What guys will play on it? Afghanistan may need stabilization aid for a while, but it's not like the Taliban is in position to rise again. If you mean the random warlords will play on it, maybe, but listening to random warlords isn't what is called for in Afghanistan, IMHO.

To: maceng2 who wrote (18904)	2/15/2002 6:24:14 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Pollack's logic leaves a bit to be desired. How can Saddam someone who at the same time has taken deterrence to heart and still be an inveterate and almost pathological risk-taker, i.e., someone who is not subject to the punishing logic of deterrence? It seems that Saddam does understand deterrence, provided that the huge risks he incurs are made sufficiently clear to him. He will probably not go nuclear if he believes that Iraq will be turned into a parking lot in return. The trick is to turn him into a believer. I think the Israelis have already gotten halfway there.