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: D. Long who wrote (48195)	9/30/2002 10:31:32 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You have on numerous occassions poo pooed the threat posed by Iraq because you claim he can't and seemingly has no intention of attacking the continental United States. No, Derek, that is not my position nor have I posted that as a position. I simply don't and cannot know what his intentions are. What I do know is that the Bush folk have not offered reasonable evidence that he plans to attack the US or that he can, in some serious sense, be implicated in 9-11. In fact, as I read Pollock, the foreign policy establishment focuses on two issues: first, oil and Saddam's presumed use of terrorism and wmd to increase his control; and, second, his desire to be a figure of mythic heroic status among Arabs. Pollack then works his way through a series of alternate strategies to diminish the likelihood of Saddam gaining control of the oil, dismisses each, and finds himself stuck with the invasion alternative. I'm not yet to that one.