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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (5474)	3/12/2003 12:23:04 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

Whatever one thinks of Saddam, he is a master at playing the international community. He made quite clear a while back in I believe an Egyptian newspaper that his strategy was to bend just enough to keep from getting invaded or toppled, while still retaining his plans to dominate the regioin militarily. He believes that if he can offer enough concessions to satisfy the modern Chamberlains for the next several months, eventually they will turn their attentions elsewhere and leave him free to pursue his weapons programs to the point where he will become impossible to attack because of the threat of landing nuclear weapons in Israel, Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, Turkey, and perhaps if he can develop (or buy from North Korea) the missiles in the capitols of Europe. If Bush wavers, he will have been proved right. And if that happens, there will be a huge amount of hand-wringing and finger-pointing ten years from now and demands to know why nobody was willing to act back in 2003 when action was possible.

To: Neocon who wrote (5474)	3/12/2003 12:24:48 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

" ...we cannot keep up such a mobilization indefinitely in hope of putting sufficient pressure on Saddam Hussein to cooperate with the inspectors, which he will assuredly not do if there is not threat to worry him." We can, if those who are holding up the process are paying the bill. I propose that we modify the resolution this way. "If you agree that SH is cooperating on the basis of "threat of force" and the inspections under this formula will eventually bring satisfaction to you, then you pay the bill for the continued mobilization until satisfaction is reached...otherwise git-outta-th'way."