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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (153553)	10/17/2002 5:18:27 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1583681

It is beyond me how the Demos/liberals have come from the point (in the mid-70s) where nuclear proliferation was their principal issue, to where we are now, i.e., "Who are WE to stop nuclear proliferation"?

To: TimF who wrote (153553)	10/17/2002 6:02:52 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583681

The blackmail will not be blatent or something that we can not possibly yield on (there will be no "let us take over Saudi and in the meantime why don't you give us control over Hawaii too...) But they can deter us from acting against them when we might feel the need to do so. For example imagine if Iraq had nukes back in 1990 when they invaded Kuwait. They probably would have had them if it wasn't for Israel bombing their reactor. Don't you think that might have effected our response? Tim, I understand your concern. However, the only way he can blackmail us is if he had a death wish, and that clearly is not his problem. Saddam is a potential troublemaker that makes the neighborhood [the earth] feel unsafe and we know we can take him out fairly easily because we believe he has few if any friends. Saddam is a troublemaker not just a potential one, who has the potential for being a bigger troublemaker esp. if he gets nukes. Also he is a trouble maker in one of the most important and vulnerable areas of the world. He has also violated a cease fire agreement giving technical grounds to resume the status prior to the agreement (which was that of American amoured forces rolling over the Iraqi army), and we feel we can take him out fairly easily because he has few friends and for other reasons. I meant a potential trouble maker for us. Its one thing if he attacks Kuwait and its another if he attacks the US directly. Its my understanding Bush wants to take Saddam out mostly because he might present problems for us. Even the countries that neighbor Iraq are less enthusiastic about taking him out then we are. ted