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: Ilaine who wrote (47945)	9/29/2002 7:03:18 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"He certainly has the ability to cause grievous bodily harm, that's not being debated." I do not believe that has been established at all. He certainly has no obvious means to strike the US with chemical weapons and would not be able to use biological weapons easily. He could strike Israel but his strikes would be minor compared with Israel's nuclear capability with some 200 usable nuclear bombs and the means to deliver them. Reading through your notes, it seems that there is a best a very feeble basis for claiming that there is going to be an "immanent" attack. There are lots of "sworn enemies" in the world and they refrain from attacking each other. Compared to other countries, it is hard to make the case that Iraq is well armed. It is certainly nothing compared to Israel or Pakistan or India of China or Russia.... etc, etc. And each of these countries has sworn enemies or at least people that they would like to be able to attack at will. If India launched a nuclear attack on Pakistan, I would not buy the idea that it was in "self-defense". Same if Israel vaporized Syria -- although a far stronger case could be made for Israel to nuke its neighbors than for us to attack Iraq in "self-defense". I don't think it is possible, on the basis of the evidence made public to date, to say that an attack on Iraq would be in self-defense. If we are going to attack Iraq we need a better reason -- like its violation of the UN resolutions.