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: Dayuhan who wrote (41481)	9/2/2002 3:48:23 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

Good points, Steven. Stay safe.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (41481)	9/2/2002 12:25:31 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Now ask yourself: if Saddam knows that we are going to destroy him anyway, why shouldn't he turn over everything he has to Osama? I agree with this logic 100%. I argued the same thing, myself. You are absolutely correct that turning WMD over to Al Qaeda would be good revenge. The difference is that I did not stop there. After thinking about it, I realized that it would also be a good insurance policy. He has every incentive to do it as soon as he thinks we might want to attack him, and he's paranoid. You seem to think that if we don't attack him, he'll hang on to the weapons. I think he'll give Al Qaeda the weapons as soon as he thinks we might attack him. After all, once we attack him, can he be sure that will have the ability to give Al Qaeda the weapons? Even forcing him to allow inspections may have the unintended consequence that he will hand the weapons to Al Qaeda before the inspectors come in. "Let sleeping dogs lie" isn't smart when the dog has rabies. I am well aware that you are potentially a target of individual aggression in the Philippines. However, you have little or no chance of being the target of weapons of mass destruction, as you don't live in an urban environment. I don't wish you any ill, just wonder how you'd feel if your town had a bulls-eye painted in the town center.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (41481)	9/3/2002 10:07:58 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

Don't confuse her with the facts. Perhaps kidnapping, head-hacking Islamists in the Philipines don't count. While I agree with you that no factual publically-available case has been made for the proposition that Iraq has deliberately tried to harm the US, this is not what the debate is about. It is about whether absent hard evidence--or skimpy evidence at best--it is appropriate to take on Saddam before he has nukes and changes the political and military equilibrium in the ME and, consequently, potentially effects a serious economic dislocation of Western economies. It isn't about terrorism and Bush has not yet, as far as I know, mentioned it as a justification.