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: carranza2 who wrote (55240)	10/28/2002 3:59:11 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

That is one of the reasons to make it swift and sudden......

To: carranza2 who wrote (55240)	10/28/2002 9:14:08 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There are too many imponderables, including the nature of Saddam's response at the end of the conflict. If he uses WMDs on American troops, it might take a lot longer than we think. Interesting. Did you come to that conclusion from reading Pollack? One of my experiences with that book was that as I read my way through containment, deterrence, whatever, my interest in the invasion argument grew stronger. However, as I read the invasion argument my concerns for length of time grew; and as I read material on occupation, my concerns grew still more. Since we come at the issue of Iraq from different starting points, I'm curious if your progression through the book was similar.