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: jttmab who wrote (118834)	11/6/2003 11:46:04 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

He was a little constrained? What about your claim that containment was breaking down? It was not breaking down in 1998. I never said it was. It was breaking down, very clearly, from 2000 on, and would soon have vanished altogether. Please tell me the great source of your expertise on Iraq that makes you think you know better than Ken Pollack or Phebe Marr on this issue. That's about as successful a policy of containment as one can have. The army wasn't in shambles; the rest of the country was. That wasn't for lack of money, but reflected Saddam's priorities. His palaces and mosques were many & new & nice and shiny, too. When the sanctions finally broke down, Saddam would have had even more money, immense prestige from his victory, and no constraints. I swear, your arguments are based on the assumption that everything is fixed and nothing changes. It is impossible to point out a trend to you.