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.

Pastimes : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (1935)	10/2/2002 2:08:13 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

Wow! Have I been elected President? Launch! :-) The Administration has not shown that Iraq has the capability to make make nukes - which are the really significant MWD (although biological, which they do have, can hardly be ignored), The Administration has alleged, but not proven, that Iraq is tied to al Qaeda. Proof of either would probably get the UN resolution needed. Saudi Arabia has said the US could use its territory to launch an attack if there is a UN resolution- -but not without. We HAVE to have a land base for an attack. Carriers alone will just provide a juicy target. And if the US goes in alone without international backing and without proof that its actions are justified, many other Arab and Muslim nations and peoples will oppose us - directly and covertly. An official or unofficial jihad will follow. Generally, there will be hell to pay. Previously I was trying to point out the fallacy and danger of the simplistic pacifist "How can the nasty old bullying US pick on little old innocent Iraq?" viewpoint. If Iraq uses CBW or nukes on Israel or the US, there will be hell to pay too. Yeah, I'm divided. There seems to be no safe path.