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: Brumar89 who wrote (60849)	12/10/2002 9:21:38 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What I found insulting is the claim that the US is contemplating war with Iraq for a host of silly domestic political reasons So anything other than your own view is an insult? It means you can never have a meaningful debate with others. That is very sad. Do you contest anything I've said in this paragraph? As strange as it may seem to you, I do. I don't know if you noticed, but so do many others. Let's see: There is ample reason to believe Saddam will develop nuclear weapons (as well as other WMD's) in the coming years What reasons are you talking about? Where is the proof? Even if he does have WMDs, why invade Iraq and not North Korea, which admitted to a nuclear program? Israel? France? Iraq is not singularly egregious in this respect, you know. Saddam's history of behavior shows he is determined to dominate the Gulf What has he done in the past ten years to make you say that? . Thus it is not in the world's interest to allow the area to be controlled by a reckless madman like Saddam. So you think Bush just woke up one days and realized this? That the Gulf area is important economically (duh!) and that it's better that US invade and control the area rather than let it in the hands of Saddam? The odds that Saddam will use nuclear weapons are so high in his quest... If so, how do you explain the fact that his neighbours do not seem in the least concerned that Saddam might have nuclear weapons? Are they all mad/stupid/crazies and only the Bush administration are smart? There is no way to do that but to go to war to overthrow his regime "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". As Steven said a few posts back, I am not convinced either that this is the only choice, even if one is to accept your proposition that (1) Saddam is a mad man and not just another military dictator (2) He has/intends to have WMDs (3) He will use them on his neighbours Do you contest anything I've said in this paragraph? Even if you do, you ought to be able to acknowledge that there is an argument to be made on the opposing side Obviously, I do. And, yes, there is "an argument to be made on the opposing side", for there always is. Haven't you noticed that arguments always have a minimum of two sides??? Your arguments are nothing new. Bush et al say it on TV every day. As such, they are the simplest possible arguments, aimed at the lowest common denominator in the public, in order to build public support for the imminent invasion of Iraq.