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: Hawkmoon who wrote (48229)	9/30/2002 1:14:35 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

How true! And after last night's 60 minutes, you're going to have a hard time getting the American people to make a long term committment toward stationing tens of thousands of troops there.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (48229)	9/30/2002 9:55:46 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "One option to contain Saddam at that stage would be to supply Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Iran with nukes. -- Not on your life... :0)" There are what, at least 8 countries with reasonable numbers of nukes. To supply Kuwait with nukes only requires one of those countries. Re: "Personally, I don't want the US to be forced to engage in another long lasting face off such as we endured during the cold war.. And I certainly don't want to have to do it in the Middle East." I guess when the US got involved in Vietnam there was some beliefs that they could see the "light at the end of the tunnel" and would be out in a couple years. But how the hell can you suggest that the US, after a war to create regime change in Iraq, wouldn't be stuck there for years? How long after the regime changes in Germany and Japan have we had troops there? -- Carl