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: jcky who wrote (52700)	10/17/2002 2:41:09 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

can already hear the footsteps of the Bush administration back-pedaling to explain why attacking Iraq is so urgent when North Korea is the greater nuclear threat and Iran the greater complicit supporter of terrorist activities. I am sure his war gang will try to portray Saddam as a special case requiring our utmost attention Saddam is a special case because a) of the Gulf War armistice agreements which he made with the US and the UN, and broke them all, and b) Saddam doesn't have Chinese patronage. The mess we (& S. Korea and Japan) are in with N. Korea is all the more reason not to willingly enter such a mess with Iraq. I mean, what principle are you pushing here -- "no fair objecting to any country's having nukes unless we object equally to every country's having nukes. It's not fair!" Can you seriously push such childishness as a principle of foreign policy? or do you just pretend that if North Korea is a menace, it must mean that somehow Iraq is not?