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: JohnM who wrote (77853)	2/26/2003 4:02:09 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We certainly agree that Bush has not done nearly the communications work that is required. As for me personally, I think that Iraq is a beachhead to make America a powerful force in the Middle East, combined with Saddam flagrant refusal to disarm and the fact that he has twice been less than a year from having nukes without any Western intelligence agencies knowing is all the justification I need. I expect that there will be some terrorist attacks on US troops out of Iran and that will lead to some tactical retaliation. However, beyond that, I don't expect any large scale military action after Iraq but I do think there will be more than 100,000 troops in Iraq for roughly 5 years. Paul

To: JohnM who wrote (77853)	2/26/2003 5:23:23 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Saddam and bin Laden "will" cooperate tactically, who knows A thought just hit me as I read your post. If we get attacks here by Terrorists when we liberate Iraq, you can forget the next Presidential election. Bush will win no matter how the invasion and occupation goes. It will "Prove" that they are all working in tandem, and that we have to go after all of them. No amount of Dem protests will overcome it.

To: JohnM who wrote (77853)	2/26/2003 9:12:41 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

So, finally, I gather you are pinning your argument on Saddam's refusal to disarm. That's hardly even close to a reason to invade. It is certainly a reason to keep him pinned in, to make the sanctions smarter, etc. But not to invoke the devastation of war. Not at all. OK. For sake of the argument. Who is going to continue "to keep him pinned in, to make the sanctions smarter, etc." And whilst he is kept "pinned in" he will continue to murder and torture entire families and neighbourhoods. He will continue to starve the unfavoured parts of the population under the "smarter sanctions." But, of course, this isn't the same as the "devastation of war" and we certainly won't have invoked it. Right? frank@onemilliondeadfourmillionexiled.com