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.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (5116)	8/16/2002 11:49:34 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 12246

It's the gray hairs, Scowcroft and Kissinger, in the formal and informal foreign policy establishment who are suggesting caution in any forays into Iraq. "An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardise, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken," Mr Scowcroft wrote. ... contd... > I have yet to see a good case made for the suggestion that cooperation on antiterrorism efforts will be jeopardized by an attack on Iraq. Here's my take, FWIW: 1.- Iraq is a proven training ground for both AQ and other terrorist organizations. Disrupting this training function clearly would assist, not jeopardize, antiterror efforts. 2.- Antiterror efforts are clearly distinct from diplomacy and foreign policy. I can see having serious disagreements with our allies concerning Iraq, yet maintaining a solid front with them vis-a-vis terrorism. Antiterrorism and Iraq are not linked, and it is in the best interests of our allies to cooperate on antiterror even if they disagree with our position on Iraq. Why? Our allies are subject to terror attacks just like we are, as proven buy the foiled aviation attack on the Eiffel Tower. In a word, it is in everyone's interests to cooperate on antiterror. SirC2BBM