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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (66312)	9/26/2002 2:23:51 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

OT OT re "I am not a Bush fan, but his strong stand. IMO, is just to get the inspectors in" Every statement from every Presidential spokesman, has said that the goal is "regime change", not just stopping Iraq's WMD programs. You think this is just a negotiating position, and in the end they don't really mean it, and they'll settle for effective inspections. I'm afraid they mean what they say. It is only a matter of time (a few years, not decades), before a Khomeini or Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons. Nonproliferation was always just a temporary solution, and now has failed. One Islamic country already has the Bomb, and there will be more. We need to plan for a world in which several virulently anti-American non-status-quo powers have nuclear weapons. Deterrence worked with the Soviet Union, because they were a status-quo power, a nation that had already conquered a large empire using conventional forces. What would we have done, if Saddam Hussein had, after taking Kuwait in 1990, exploded a nuke in an empty desert? We would have let him keep Kuwait. Poor, small countries can only oppose the US with terrorism, guerrila war, or nukes.