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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (50342)	10/8/2002 9:27:28 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

My model? You seem to have picked up the CobaltBlue style of "inference" quite well today. Looks like a straw man argument to me. As for sneering, that's sort of like sarcasm as far as I can tell. Cool when you do it, uncool otherwise.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (50342)	10/8/2002 9:39:45 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "Your model said all the allies opposed a US move on Iraq -- their diplomats all said so repeatedly, after all -- and they wouldn't grant us bases. Mine said they were really afraid of the wrath of Saddam if we backed out, and they would opposed us publicly up 'til the moment they saw we were serious, when we would suddenly acquire a lot of new best buddies and all the bases we wanted. Lo and behold, we have bases in Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Qattar, and even Saudi Arabia and Iran(!) are signing on." This is an interesting concept, given that those bases all date to long before the WTC. More importantly, they all have repeatedly publicly stated that they will allow no unilateral attacks on Iraq from their territory. Some of them are willing to be a part of a UN attack, but then again, they also are in contact with various members of the UN security council with veto power, so that may not mean very much, LOL. -- Carl