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: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (44037)	9/15/2002 12:00:19 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If they haven't attacked then why in heck do the leaders of this country feel they need to attack. They did attack them. Took out their Nuclear Power Plant in the '80s. If they hadn't, Saddam would have turned Tel Aviv into a radioactive ruin.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (44037)	9/15/2002 12:09:42 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Don't you think that Israel would have moved against Iraq if they were a threat to them? If they haven't attacked then why in heck do the leaders of this country feel they need to attack. Israel has acquired some nuclear-armed subs to insure a second-strike capability, and made sure that Iraq knows about it. Other than that, Israel catches hell if it preempts even an immanent attack, let alone threats. They caught hell when they bombed Osirik, they've got their hands full at the moment, and containing Iraq is the job of the US/UK. Israel's job is containing Syria. It simply doesn't make any sense to wage war because you THINK someone MIGHT be a threat in the future. So we would have said about Osama bin Laden before 9/11. We have reevaluated the threat potential of our declared enemies since then. Saddam is a declared enemy, he has been fighting his way out of the containment box for years, he has been regaining stature in the region as a great survivor, and he has been giving aid and orders to all sorts of terrorists: Palestinian (openly), Ansar al Islam and al Qaeda (less openly). Saddam is also a big risk taker. This is a man who invaded Iran, a country four times the size and power of Iraq. Do you really want to wait around to see what all this adds up to? IMO, we should have taken Saddam out four years ago when he tossed out the weapons inspectors. The deterrence we lost then by giving in to him, combined with all the other bullets we've eaten in the Mideast since 1983 (when Hizbullah blew up the Marine barracks) is directly responsible for making al Qaeda think they could survive our response to 9/11.