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: michael97123 who wrote (69865)	1/29/2003 1:06:56 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

What arguments? I'm not arguing anything, and as near as I can tell, you're just cheering for W, right or wrong. Personally, I think the WMD line is just war marketing, the real reasons lie elsewhere. If W was willing to be honest about the real reasons, I might take him a little more seriously. If you insist, I doubt that Iraq has any nuclear weapons, or will likely get them in the near to medium future, war or no war. Chemical weapons, yes, there's probably something there, but I doubt Iraq has the ability to deliver them in bulk anywhere outside its borders. Biological is an unknown, but it doesn't seem that probably that Iraq under the sanctions regime has suddenly beaten the rest of the world to the punch there. It's not that Iraq doesn't present risks, but there are risks everywhere. Just because the war marketeers decided that Iraq is worst doesn't make it so. Offhand, I'd say that Iraq is internationally more isolated and presents less of a threat than Syria, Iran, or Pakistan on the running with terrorists front, and is nowhere near the nuclear capabilities of Pakistan or North Korea. Focusing every on Iraq has its costs too.