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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (14494)	3/2/2003 8:11:40 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 25898

I don't agree with your arguments that it is reasonable for Saddam to retain chemcial weapons and that we should be understanding this. Containment of Saddam requires maintaining an active military presence in the region, patrolling the no-fly zones, and maintianing the UN sanctions on Iraq. I don't think we are going to be able to maintain this forever. Our large military presence is itself a destabilizing force in the region. Our military presence in SA was #1 on Osama bin Ladin's list of complaints justifying the fatwa he issued calling on Muslims to kill Americans. #2 on his list was the sanctions on Iraq, which he claimed was killing 500,000 Iraqi children every year. Also in regard to the sanctions, I note that most antiwar folks are also anti-sanctions. So do you want to maintain a large military presence in the countries bordering Iraq indefinately and maintain sanctions on Iraq indefinately? This is what a policy of containment means.