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: TimF who wrote (150003)	8/19/2002 5:34:50 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578331

OK, but what about all the other parts of the question? Does it have to be solid evidence that the US will face eminent attack if we don't strike first? Does the evidence have to suggest that an attack is almost certain or is merly likely enough? If the we forsee the attack does it have to be on the US or would an attack on say Kuwait be enough? My uncertainty about giving 100% support to the possible attack derives from concern about the costs (in lives, money, and possibly international political capital) of the attack, not from any feeling that taking out Saddam would be wrong. If you believed that we could quickly and relatively painlessly take out Saddam would you support it, or would you oppose it as wrong even if it had few negative practical consequences? Tim, yes, of course........and so long as the international opposition was more muted than it is right now. As it stands right now, I have the same problems with it that you do. Otherwise, I could care less for any dictator whether it be Saddam or someone else. ted

To: TimF who wrote (150003)	8/19/2002 6:19:38 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578331

My uncertainty about giving 100% support to the possible attack derives from concern about the costs (in lives, money, and possibly international political capital) of the attack, not from any feeling that taking out Saddam would be wrong. If you believed that we could quickly and relatively painlessly take out Saddam would you support it, or would you oppose it as wrong even if it had few negative practical consequences? However, here significant loss of life, very likely civilian Arab life, is a certainty. Political fallout, particularly relative to Arab/American relations stands to suffer further. In many ways Iraq is a well defined, enemy, simpler to defeat. It is a near certainity that such a defeat will bring America further animosity by the common Arab and the underground extremist Islamic fundamentalist Arab. Hence, suppressing the perceived easier to defeat Iraqi threat is certain to increase the clear, more dificult to defeat underground Islamic threat. So what will have been accomplished? Al