SI
SI
discoversearch

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: stockman_scott who wrote (69702)1/29/2003 1:17:06 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 281500
 
Paul: I agree with you for the most part...Bush didn't convince me that Iraq was A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER that warranted going to war right now

scott, considering that the nature of the threat is terrorism and not a conventional attack, what would it take to convince you? By the nature of terrorism, you don't see troops massing beforehand, but that alone does not mean that there is no threat. What sort of evidence would convince you?



To: stockman_scott who wrote (69702)1/29/2003 1:23:42 AM
From: slacker711  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Bush didn't convince me that Iraq was A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER that warranted going to war right now.

If Iraq becomes a "A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER", it will already be too late for action.

For illustration, the various India-Pakistan flareups over the last two years. Twenty years ago, India would likely have gone to war over the terrorist incidents that they perceived to be directed by Pakistan. In this case, there was very little they could do, a war would have carried the risk of a nuclear escalation.

India could have absolute and unequivocal evidence that Paksistan was behind the attacks and they still would have been left with only diplomatic and economic pressure.

For an example closer to home....we have very few options with respect to North Korea.

If five years from now, Iraq has a nuclear weapon....what could we do if we had clear evidence of Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq?

The answer is just about nothing.

Slacker



To: stockman_scott who wrote (69702)1/29/2003 1:26:01 AM
From: paul_philp  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
Scott,

I think it would have been virtually impossible for Bush to move you a single inch. You threshold for proof is so high that it will never be met and your mistrust of Bush so complete that you will call it all a lie anyways. It is not you that I wish he had spoken to. It is the people you raise doubts with that needed their confidence reinforced.

Paul