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: Sig who wrote (106467)	7/19/2003 2:59:39 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am wondering what "right" we have (other than simply might, and our own "feeliings") to keep other countries from having nukes when we have a total of 10,500 to 12,000. (7,300 strategic, 3,200 -4,700 tactical). Now doesn't it seem a little churlish to have all those nukes and not let a country like N. Korea or Iraq have even one? We were willing to threaten their use- or Bush was. Another mistake Bush made-and a very grave one- further legitimizing the tactical use of nukes. footnotes: wand.org cnn.com

To: Sig who wrote (106467)	7/19/2003 3:08:12 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

<<President Bush and his national security adviser did not entirely read the most authoritative prewar assessment of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, including a State Department claim that an allegation Bush would later use in his State of the Union address was "highly dubious," White House officials said yesterday.>> You could understand that Bush might not bother to read this document -- although given that it was his decision to go to war, perhaps it is not too much to expect. But for Rice? She should be fired on the spot. washingtonpost.com