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 (69958)	1/29/2003 3:53:42 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Are you saying the real reason for the upcoming war is that containment is tedious, messy, and thankless? ...and is breaking down, and is completely unable to counter-act assymetrical warfare. Dollars, I don't know, but I see no way that Saddam is stronger militarily now than he was either before or immediately after GWI. Quite the opposite, in fact. The sanctions are essentially gone, so Saddam has his oil billions again. Militarily, his is weaker now than before GWI, but what will be the situation in a couple of years when he has nukes? Don't you think he will be able to deter us? Will we risk nuclear war, either in the oil fields or in the US, for the sake of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia? Look ahead a few years, what do you see? This is why Ken Pollack argues that war now is the least-bad option. I think the failure of containment is sometimes greatly and conveniently exaggerated. Those who think so are only looking at conventional threats.