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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (286320)	8/13/2002 10:33:02 PM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

J.F., When you talk about nuclear weapons and MAD, you are talking about a situation where there were 2 PLAYERS not dozens!!! Why is this so hard to grasp! Further, President Clinton in 1997 signed a Presidential Directive, that allowed the targeting of "rogue states" with "prospective access" to nuclear weapons. In the context of the conflict in Iraq, the Clinton Administration did not rule out any option. Since the Soviets and the United States have had nuclear weapons, there have been several instances where the use of nuclear weapons were threatened! You just choose to ignore them, and now pretend that the more countries with Nukes, the merrier. Presidents, Truman (reportedly), Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson, have all either threatened or considered the use of Nuclear bombs. The Soviet Union hinted about attacking China with nuclear bombs during their border war in the late 60's. Even moving tactical nukes within range of the Chinese. Israel was reportedly very close to launching nuclear weapons against her enemies during the 73 war. In 1999, Pakistan and India were reportedly very close to using nuclear weapons during their confrontation. Why would you think adding Saddam and Iraq to this mix, would make things better? You assume, (probably because you are against attacking Iraq, and most likely SDI) that having thousands of nuclear bombs was stabilizing. What if we were just Lucky? Are you so sure that another country will show the restraint that the United States and the Soviet Union showed, when their early warning systems (at different occasions) had indicated a launch of missiles? And why do you assume know, what Saddam is thinking anyway? The tone of you question, clearly indicates, that you do not believe Saddam is suicidal, or that he would not take an action that may destroy him. Well, IMHO, he is a BIG TIME GAMBLER. He has put his life at risked, for most of his life. When he killed his President (or whom ever his boss was), he was gambling with his life. When he attacked Iran - a larger country with three times Iraq's population, wasn't Saddam gambling with his life? When he was losing, and started using mustard gas against Iran, wasn't that taking a risk? When he attacked Kuwait, and refused to leave, as the United States was sending hundreds of thousands of troops, wasn't he gambling? Why do you assume that Saddam would not be willing to gamble with his life, and the lives of his people when it comes to nuclear bombs?