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: Win Smith who wrote (42864)	9/9/2002 12:43:33 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Put simply, the Bush administration fears that Iraq's acquisition of nuclear arms would embolden a hostile Iraqi government and transform the strategic balance of power in the Persian Gulf. Military action is the favored option in the hope that it would finally put an end to the Iraqi menace and because American officials are confident that United States forces would quickly prevail. How does this statement lead to your conclusion that "it isn't exactly WMD that's behind it all"? What are "nuclear arms", chopped liver? This statement confirms the WMD focus; it doesn't negate it.

To: Win Smith who wrote (42864)	9/9/2002 12:57:58 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

because American officials are confident that United States forces would quickly prevail That statement scares the hell out of me. When officials become "confident" of the outcome in a proposed war, it is 99.9% (imho) certain they are completely wrong. If they said they were scared chitless I would feel more comfortable. A lot more comfortable. What happens if China and Russia join the war on Iraqs side? You know, as well as invading Taiwan...seeing we are all in the offensive mode these days.

To: Win Smith who wrote (42864)	9/9/2002 1:38:15 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I found this Times piece quite interesting. Iraq comes to look a bit more like symbol and a slight bit less like threat. That is, Iraq is easier so let's take it down. That will be a lesson for other countries. I don't like that at all. I wonder if we will get some response to this argument from the Bush camp.

To: Win Smith who wrote (42864)	9/9/2002 3:40:05 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

North Korea is also ahead of Iraq in terms of ballistic missiles. North Korea has deployed the No Dong missile, a medium-range system. So North Korea is ahead of Iraq in WMD capability.. 1000+ km range too. Hmmmmmmmmmm.. I know my recent posts suggesting Wall St steers USA foreign policy, are probably groundless conspiracy type fears (we know conspiracies do not exist)... but exactly how many oil wells does North Korea have?? Is there a positive correlation between countries that GWB say should be attacked to eliminate terrorist activity, and large oil interests in the region??