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: stockman_scott who wrote (76228)	2/21/2003 7:47:06 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

1) Eliminating weapons of mass destruction: The reason most often given by the administration for going to war with Iraq is to reduce the risk of a WMD attack on the United States. To be sure, a significant WMD attack on the United States would be a terrible disaster, and it is appropriate for the President of the United States to take effective and vigorous action to prevent this from happening. If this is, in fact, Bush's primary concern, then one would imagine that he would pay the greatest attention to the greatest threat of WMD usage against the United States, and deploy available U.S. resources--troops, dollars, and diplomacy--accordingly. But is this what Bush is actually doing? The answer is no. Anyone who takes the trouble to examine the global WMD proliferation threat closely and to gauge the relative likelihood of various WMD scenarios would have to conclude that the greatest threat of WMD usage against the United States at the present time comes from North Korea and Pakistan, not Iraq. >>> The use of biological weapons anywhere is a treat to the world and the US, because it could spread rapidly thru air travel. It is also could be packaged to be easily transported undetected by terrorists to other countries. Any country that values human life would properly vote to ban those. <<<< threat of WMD usage against the United States at the present time comes from North Korea and Pakistan, not Iraq >>> Those threats are only the missile-delivered nuclear threat. The first country that launches one outside its own border will not get a chance to launch another. Major nuclear powers will have discussed and established a plan as to who will respond and with what. We and others have brainpower at work- studies and plans that will never be made public To venture a guess If N Korea starts it , perhaps China has agreed to strike back. If N Korea sends one our way , England or Russia may have agreed to strike back. Israel will strike only if one lands on their soil In matter like these there has to be a certain trust among countries leaders. ( to do the job agreed to) France's actions and retreat in the UN says they have lost their integrity and are undeserving of trust. If they are the ones being attacked perhaps we should let the UN debate the issue for 6 months before taking a vote as to whether any other country will be permitted to come to their aid. Chemical weapons are a separate item with their own characteristics, much less of a Global threat. Saddam cannot be trusted To cease WMD activities as he agreed to do To keep his missiles within agreed-to performance boundaries To provide civilians with the food and medicine in the food for oil program To abide by a non-aggression pact and stay within his borders To use only conventional weapons He is a lyin,cheatin, thieving, double-dealing horse theif and will get his butt kicked Sig