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: kumar who wrote (40442)	8/28/2002 12:33:00 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Would a war on Iraq fall into the 1st or 2nd category ? Depends on the reason given for going to war. If we are going to war because we believe that there is a possability that a Hussein developed bomb would go off in NY or DC, then we have no choice. Same is true if Iraq is currently sheltering Al Qaeda. The situation is a little more messy if you believe that a nuclear equipped Iraq would simply become a renewed threat to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Would we fight a war to protect SA or Kuwait against a nuclear equipped Iraq? If not, then allowing Hussein to develop nuclear weapons would basically forfeit ALL leverage we have in the region. The implications are pretty far reaching. What would we do if Al Qaeda started using Iraq as a base once Hussein had a nuclear weapon? They might not have access to his bomb, but they could plan more 9/11's. What could we do then? I'm not sure if my posts sound like it....but I am honestly on the fence with the current situation. Sometimes, it seems entirely easier to simply allow a continuation of the status-quo. The central question of the debate (for me) is my reading of Hussein. If he is a rational player in the ME, we might be able to let the status-quo stand. If not, well....all of the options are ugly. Slacker