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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (58412)	9/17/2002 3:55:20 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

<Maybe [the evidence for Iraqi threat] is true and the proof is obscure. I simply do not have enough information to throw my support behind the President's position.> Now see, that is entirely reasonable.

To: one_less who wrote (58412)	9/17/2002 4:09:18 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The problem, as I see it, is that even if Iraq does develop the same weapons we and numerous other countries have, they are unlikely to threaten us. Iraq can never invade us, or even attack us -- they clearly lack the navy, air force, or missile technology do do so. So any rationale for attacking them must, I think, rest on one of two premises. One: Iraq can attack friends of ours, and we have a right to act in self-defense of our friends. That's what got us into the first Gulf war, defending Kuwait. But is Iraq really likely to repeat that mistake, knowing it will bring the US into full war with them with the full backing of the world powers? If he does get the bomb and use it against, say, Israel, virtually every nation on earth would line up to send in forces, and Saddam would be out on his ear. He's not that crazy. He likes power, likes to rule, and will tweak noses all he can, but will only go so far, and not far enough to turn Russia, China, and most Africa and the Middle East (and much of Europe) against him. So IMO, he poses no legitimate threat to us or to the region, no matter what weapons he gets. If the UN decides otherwise, and the majority of world governments line up to support deposing Saddam, the picture changes. But I don't think it is smart for us to try to be the policemen of the world. Two, we can argue our right to attack him because we believe he harbors and supports anti-American terrorists. But he's far from the worst country in that regard. None of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq, as far as I know. Libyan, not Iraqui, terrorists brought down the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie. I don't know of a single major terrorist attack which Iraq is directly iimplicated in supporting. And if we're going to act pre-emptively, why Iraq and why not Pakistan, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and several other countries which are much more involved in terrorists using their territory than Iraq is. There may be a case for war, but I don't see it yet. BTW, if I don't respond to a reply promptly, it's because for work, not family, reasons I have to be out for a few hours. But I shall return!