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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (149294)	8/8/2002 3:42:50 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578072

Why do you assume that anyone with a differing point of view is a "dispicable" liberal? And why do you disparage a liberal point of view anyway...a counterpoint is critical to balance. I have no problem with liberals putting forth arguments. I do have trouble with what seems a characteristic of most liberals -- ad homenem attacks without reasoned argument. Any liberal who makes a reasoned argument against me will receive my respect. Joe Biden is a great example. I can't agree with much of anything he says -- but he seldom resorts to politically motivated attacks and he does a great job of conveying his reasoning. Daschle, on the other hand, makes attacks with no support, so it is just impossible to respect him. I feel the same way about the arguments on this thread. a) Survival. I have a problem with such biblical terms in the context of Saddam. Before Kuwait, he was our friend. When he attacked Iran we were his suppliers. When he attacked Kuwait, he was the enemy. He may want to destroy us...I don't know. I know that he can't and I also know that he fears us The fact that Saddam was our "friend" before Kuwait is not material to the current situation; I can't see what our relationship with Saddam 15 years ago has to do with this matter in the least. While he can't destroy us, he is on a path that would give him the ability to do us a great deal of harm, if he is allowed to continue. b) Pakistan is a far more troubling place in my opinion. If the country falls in the hands of the many radical groups that thrive there, they are already nuclear enabled. What do you propose in Pakistan? I agree Pakistan is troubling; however, for the time being it is under control. I believe when solving a large problem you take them one step at a time. The most immediate threat is IRAQ. Over time, we may have to deal with Pakistan, but for right now, it is less of a problem. Lemme ask you a question or two. Who do you think would come to power in Iraq if or when we depose Saddam? Before you answer, think about who is in power in Kuwait after we liberated the country. This is a legitimate concern, and by all accounts the administration is dealing with this matter as it goes. But I think there is some consensus that if we kill Saddam we're going to have to be around long enough to see that a Democracy is there to replace him.

To: Alighieri who wrote (149294)	8/8/2002 8:29:59 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1578072

a) Survival. I have a problem with such biblical terms in the context of Saddam. Before Kuwait, he was our friend. I agree that he is unlikely to attack the US directly with WMD. He is not suicidal nor does he want his country destroyed even if he does survive if only because if it is destroyed he will have nothing to rule. However he is a threat to the region and to our important interests there. If he gets nukes he could threaten to use them to try to deter us from a Dessert Storm/Saber II. He was never really our friend. Some time we had some mutual interests but the US was never that friendly with Saddam's Iraq. c) Containment. It worked for many years with a far more formidable foe. It worked but hardly perfectly. We also had to accept the Soviet Empire and also let the Soviets destabilize countries all over the world and engage us in proxy wars without us being able to respond directly against the soviets because of Soviet power esp. their nukes. If Saddam can tell the US to shove it because he has nukes it will encourage other nations to get nukes and to use them to threaten the US against intervening in regional conflicts. Tim