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: JohnM who wrote (48231)	9/30/2002 10:59:15 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

finds himself stuck with the invasion alternative Tek posted recently that he and Pollack were laughing about the NeoCon's inability to quote him. Stanley Kurtz loves him. Excerpt from NRO today. >>>But why can't we allow Saddam Hussein to obtain nuclear weapons? After all, the Soviets had nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War, yet none were used. The reason we cannot allow Saddam Hussein to obtain nuclear weapons is that Saddam cannot be deterred. That is proven beyond any reasonable doubt in Kenneth Pollack's vitally important new book, The Threatening Storm. Saddam has a nearly 30-year history of defying the logic of deterrence. Saddam regularly and radically miscalculates the dangers of his aggressive actions. He is ignorant of the outside world, and punishes or kills those who come to him with bad news. He is apt to seek revenge (as in the assassination attempt on former president Bush), even when revenge could cost him his life. And Saddam is possessed by a driving wish to dominate the Middle East. He also holds a vision of taking down his enemies when he goes, if go he must, with a terrible act of destruction that will permanently impress his "glory" into the pages of history. These propensities are real, not some caricature devised for political purposes by a war-obsessed Bush administration. Read The Threatening Storm, and you will believe.<<< nationalreview.com

To: JohnM who wrote (48231)	10/2/2002 3:28:50 AM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 281500

These two statements: 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. Are contradictory. No you haven't argued that Bush must show that Saddam must be a threat to the continental US... but "I'm not convinced that Bush has made the case Saddam is a threat to the continental US or implicated in a prior attack on the continental US." Either you are arguing that threat is defined as an attack upon the CONTUS, or you are attacking a STRAW MAN. Because the Administration's position on the threat of Saddam Hussein has been couched in the broadest terms of a threat to vital US national security concerns, part of which is the concern that Saddam will pass weapons to terrorist proxies. It is NOT the substance of the threat, it is a particular in the package. Derek