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: Sun Tzu who wrote (116992)	10/16/2003 10:35:20 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I see. Saddam, a megalomaniacal gangster, should have been allowed to get nukes in order to promote peace. I suppose the same rationale applies to the Mad Iranian Mullahs. What the heck, let everyone have nukes, the world will be a peaceful place as a result. All the religious fanatics, gangsters, etc. (most of which for some reason seem to be concentrated in the Middle East) will change their stripes. Arafat, too? Why not Hizbollah? It is mind-boggling to see your viewpoint seriously advocated. It assumes that all the nations that are currently overtly or covertly seeking to become armed with nukes are rational and responsible. It also assumes that the nations currently armed with nukes are not. Otherwise why would the unarmed entities seek the weapons? Nukes in the hands of the Mad Mullahs, Iraqis under Saddam, Syria,..why not? The N. Korean nuts should be allowed nukes because the US has designs on their god-forsaken land? Perhaps you meant to say that they should be allowed to have nukes so that they could peacefully sell nukes and missiles to other peaceful and responsible nations?