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: GST who wrote (122085)	12/25/2003 9:35:58 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

First of all, Germany post WWI was no industrial giant in anybody's eyes, and the Treaty of Versailles was designed to keep it that way. As I told you, if the Third Reich had fallen in 1936, few would have regarded it as a serious threat. Second, no one has suggested that Iraq was a conventional threat. The threat was unconventional, it was of assymetrical warfare. You have perhaps heard of terrorism and assymetrical warfare? Iraq doesn't need to be an industrial giant to to be a threat, it only needs motive, means, method and opportunity to try to destroy America's economy any way it could, for instance by training terrorists to set off a dirty bomb in Manhattan. That is the threat we are worried about. Now would you once and for all examine the nature of the actual threat under discussion, and stop knocking down straw men? We no longer live in a world where anybody with less than 10 divisions doesn't need to be worried about.