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: JohnM who wrote (64239)	1/3/2003 1:37:29 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

John, Appeasement and Chamberlain go to together but perhaps Chamberlain saw the horror of WW2 looming and tried to take a step back. It was too late. The real appeasement had occured in the early 30s when Hitler could have been stopped. This perhaps applies to the differences in policy toward iraq and NK. Saddam is in the early 30s. NK is in the early 50s where we used containment on stalin or in the early 70s when we used containment on china. I do believe and i know you disagree that Saddam will be out of control if he gets to 1939 vintage because the US deterrent isnt credible to the arab states in the area who will ask the question whether the US will risk millions of casualties(combo bioterror and nukes) for them. And as i pointed out in an earlier post, I dont think our deterrent is credible in that case. France/DeGaulle believed this even in europe as did Israeli leaders when they created their regional deterrent. I find it hard to believe that most anti-war americans just assume that we will nuke iraq in that circumstance and form incredible that they(the opponents to this war) will support the US taking a 20million person hit and then vaporizing iraq. You are a bright guy--i would like you to think this one thru. Mike