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: Machaon who wrote (18546)	3/10/2003 12:00:41 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

The odds of North Korea targetting America, with it's one dubious missile, is low. North Korea would be blown into kingdom come, and they know it. Well, quite. that's the whole point of deterrence. Why is this not likely to apply to Saddam, who doesn't even have that "one, dubious missile", who's got an army in tatters, is bombed out of half his country, and has - as far as we can tell, a few dubious rumours notwithstanding - no functional nukes or other WMD's? If deterrence works against the incredibly militarised and militaristic North Korea, as it worked against the Soviets, Mao's China, etc... why won't it contain Saddam? Do you think Saddam is likely to launch an unprovoked attack on the US or the West? - more so than N Korea? Or is he more able to do so? Why is Saddam such a threat to the west, suddenly - what is it he can do which means he MUST be removed, now? We've tolerated him and other dictators - supplied them, armed them, supported them, even. There are better armed and thus more dangerous countries. Why Saddam, now? Saddam is constrained, and although his regime is doubtless vile in the bits of Iraq he still controls, he's not accused (that I've heard of) of any active policies of genocide, of forced expulsion, of mass slaughter and rape. But there are people being massacred, now - e.g., in the Congo, or Ivory Coast - if we're suddenly so concerned. If we're so humanitarian, which is just fine by me, why not rescue Africa - why not storm into the Congo and use war to bring peace there, for starters? Why Saddam, and why now, and why so urgent?

To: Machaon who wrote (18546)	3/10/2003 12:12:42 PM
From: Kenya AA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

So, because of this, North Korea's neighbor's don't have to be worried? I don't agree. I have NO IDEA how you drew that conclusion from my statement. I think NK's neighbors should be very worried. You're the one who's brushing NK off ... Message 18679691 "I disagree. North Korea is a problem, but it is not our problem. If China, Russia, Japan don't mind the criminally insane leaders of North Korea threaten that portion of the world with Nuclear weapons, then why should we?" A world priority should {sic} disarming, or neutralizing, North Korea. Are we not part of the "world?" I refer again to your quote above. Most of the world's leaders, dictators and appeasers, which includes you, don't care about brutal dictators starving or torturing their own people. Appeasers, like you, look the other way, when it comes to tyrants, but, want to look brave when it comes to protesting against America, who's sons and daughters have fought and died to keep the world free for democracy. I'm not looking the other way. You are. I refer again to your quote above.