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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (66924)	12/6/2002 10:40:25 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Even if Iraq does have WMDs, I don't see how this is grounds for an invasion, since: 1) many other countries also have WMDs 2) Iraq has not used them in the past 10 years against any of its neighbours MY BELIEF IS IRAQ IS SPECIAL CASE WHERE DETERRENCE WONT WORK AND THESE WEAPONS HAVE A HIGHER PROBABILITY OF BEING USED THAN IS ACCEPTABLE. Do you want him to have control of this stock or worse yet deliverable nukes or dirty bombs that can be passed on to terrorists? I don't know if Saddam controlling nukes and dirty bombs is any worse than Sharon or Putin controlling them. NAIVE NAIVE NAIVE When such weapons exist, it is always a possibility that terrorists will get control over them, possibly by stealing. How is that a reason to invade a sovereign country? FOR INSTANCE I WOULD INTERVENE IN PAKISTAN IF BIN LADEN WERE ABOUT TO GET HIS HANDS ON PAKSITAN WMD--FORGET THE CAUSES OF MIDEASTERN ANGST FOR A MINUTE AND DEAL WITH THE WORLD AS YOU WANT IT FOR YOUR KIDS.