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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2448)	1/20/2003 1:21:30 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 15987

So you did not support the binding UN resolutions forcing Saddam to dismantle his WMD programs?? Not at all. If the UN found it necessary, that's OK with me. I just don't see a reason for an invasion. Even if (and that's an IF) he has a few weapons left: (1) We cannot possibly find them (2) An invasion will not be a solution, as the next government can get their hands on them (3) Knowing he (and his country) will be destroyed if he ever uses one will prevent him from using them - just like it prevented their use in the past decade. It's far more dangerous if we permit Saddam to enter the nuclear club. Then let's not permit it. Sanctions and all that, you know... Besides, I don't see how we can prevent someone having WMDs if he really wants them. I have said this many times, but there are stuff far easier to procure and produce than nukes. The best way of preventing their use is knowledge of immediate annihilation if he ever does use them. The oil is such a false issue. It's being pumped right now.. It will be pumped in the future. Not by the US corporations, though. The only issue at hand is whether Saddam's regime, and his oil company partners reap the benefit, or whether the next government and US companies benefit. Aah. Here it is. So it is an issue. I figure since the Russians and French have been on the wrong side of this issue, supporting Saddam's tyranny I am not sure if upholding international treaties and norms of respected international behaviour, such as respect for sovereignty, are the same thing as "supporting tyranny".