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: stockman_scott who wrote (49521)	10/5/2002 6:22:46 AM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 281500

AMERICAN MILITARY RAISES HOPES IN DEPRESSED GEORGIAN CITY A EurasiaNet Photo Essay by Molly Corso: 10/04/02 eurasianet.org

To: stockman_scott who wrote (49521)	10/5/2002 8:52:38 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It's nice to know there's one grown-up voice making one coherent argument among the Democrats. My only question is, why is Levin making his argument alone? I would think that at least those senators who had decided to oppose the President would be glad of a coherent position to get behind. But no. Not that I agree with Levin. Saying war is justified only "if there's evidence that [Iraq] participated in nine-eleven, or if they are on the verge of using a weapon of mass destruction, or we are persuaded that they have a nuclear weapon, for instance, and are about to use it." may be a moral position but it's a recipe for a very expensive war, if you believe that there will be a war, which seems likely if you believe Ken Pollack's predictions about what Saddam is likely to do with his nukes once he gets them. Saddam hardly has to set them off to gain real political advantage from them; this is the point that the containment folks never address. And of course, Saddam may decide it's worth the price to nuke Israel.