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: kumar who wrote (47167)	9/26/2002 11:48:25 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Kumar, Up front you articulate the one issue that I have with Iraq - we have no evidence he is a direct threat to US territory. However at the same time there is lots of evidence of his indirect support to those against US interests and the whole way he treats his people. For example using the oil-for-food money for weapons and then blaming the starvation/lack of medicine on the UN (and the US and UK for enforcement). Somolia, Bosnia and Kosovo are precedent enough for us to go in, but then we need consistency (ie going in to the next Rwanda, looking closely at Zimbabwe etc). The trouble we have with the UN - is few countries want the proactive democracies doing that. Its dominated by dictatorships and oligarchies. John

To: kumar who wrote (47167)	9/26/2002 12:25:57 PM
From: Rollcast...	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"containment will help make sure he doesn't get his 1st nuke" Containment will be about as effective as the sanctions... IOW nada. "this is a guy who values his own life beyond others' lives." Exactly why he'd use someone else to deliver it. Saddam may be a shrewd survivor... Then again, maybe he is just a lucky megalomaniac? Most Americans understand that the potential consequences of finding out whether Saddam is sane or not are too high to sit back and watch... unlike our local appeasement lobby.