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: tekboy who wrote (65192)	1/10/2003 12:33:04 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

but I suppose the author, if asked, would say that (1) lots of things could happen between now and then, and so time might conceivably solve the problem for us short of war, and (2) with nukes he may be no easier to contain or ignore, but no harder either--that is, he would dispute your assumption that the present situation is so untenable or so likely to worsen dramatically as to make a preventive war attractive. (1)...and the horse might talk. (2) Sure, it would be no harder to contain Saddam once he got nukes. Just look at the easy time we are having with Kim Jong Il! Why do I get the feeling that you are not really persuaded either, tb? -g- There are also the side-benefits of a preventive war (IF all goes well) that discretion forbids the US from mentioning (3) We can't cut Saudi Arabia's leverage over the oil market until Iraqi oil is in the hands of a friendly power (4) We can't withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia while Saddam is in power. (5) If we're in Afghanistan and Iraq, we'll be in a good position to covertly aid the Iranians in overthrowing their mullahs. (6) If Saddam and the Mullahs go, then Hizbullah and Arafat just lost some big backing.