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: JohnM who wrote (38259)	8/16/2002 11:38:10 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You think so? I would say the opposite, he is for removing Saddam, and soon: The administration should be prepared to undertake a national debate because the case for removing Iraq's capacity of mass destruction is extremely strong... the terrorist threat transcends the nation-state; it derives in large part from transnational groups that, if they acquire weapons of mass destruction, could inflict catastrophic, even irretrievable, damage. That threat is compounded when these weapons are being built in direct violation of United Nations resolutions by a ruthless autocrat who sought to annex one of his neighbors and attacked another. The case is all the stronger because Saddam expelled U.N. inspectors installed as part of the settlement of the Gulf War and has used these weapons both against his own population and against a foreign adversary. This is why policies that deterred the Soviet Union for 50 years are unlikely to work against Iraq's capacity to cooperate with terrorist groups. The concern that war with Iraq could unleash Iraqi weapons of mass destruction on Israel and Saudi Arabia is a demonstration of self-deterrence. If the danger exists today, waiting will only magnify possibilities for blackmail. Kissinger is not saying, don't invade Iraq. What he is saying is that you cannot just invade Iraq. If you A) invade Iraq, you must B) first make your case for it, C) do serious nation-building afterwards, and D) have thought through your new position on the new international system that will arise in the wake of your actions. Kissinger supports doing A, B, C and D, so that's quite different from Scowcroft's position.