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: Win Smith who wrote (69875)	1/29/2003 1:10:53 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Message 18507386

To: Win Smith who wrote (69875)	1/29/2003 1:10:57 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

<<...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...>> Great points Win...Some folks fail to see the forest through the trees. -s2

To: Win Smith who wrote (69875)	1/29/2003 2:34:58 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

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. I partly agree with you, the WMD line is war marketing. I disagree inasmuch as I believe that Bush really believes that Saddam's WMDs are a real threat to the US, on what evidence I don't know yet. But if you think it's difficult to get allies with the WMD marketing, consider the results of giving out the real reason: The US is stuck trying to implement a failing containment strategy, which everybody else (this means you too, allies!) is happy to undermine. So the US is stuck paying for the patrols, takes the hit as an aggressor, and worst of all looks weak and ineffectual, since Saddam survives with ever more $, and parades the bodies of dead babies at intervals besides. So the US looks aggressive, cruel, weak and decadent all at once -- a big fat target for terrorists, 'shielding' the Europeans. Well, we are not going to play this game anymore. We declare new rules. How do you think that line would sell? Would you give Bush more respect if he tried it?