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 (122203)	12/27/2003 11:08:09 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Your claims about the supposed threat to the US from Iraq are the ones that have gone completely unsubstantiated. I've seen NOTHING, either from Nadine, or GWBjr for that matter, stating that Iraq was a direct threat to the US. If I'm mistaken, please indicate where you have seen these comments, providing links or quotes. However, I have seen germane and logical arguments made that Iraq INDIRECTLY threatened US interests by way of its continued aggressive stance in the Persian Gulf. I've also made the argument that permitting Saddam to remain in power threatened the regions economic and political progress. A progress so critical to stemming the reactionary trend towards Islamic militancy. As for Israel and their likely nuclear arsenal, it's also a democracy. And no legitimate democracy, to this day, has ever attacked another legitimate democracy with nuclear weapons. In fact, no legitimate democracy has ever attacked, or engaged in military conflict with a peer democracy. So maybe the best defense the Arab world has to counter any "threat" from the Israelis is for them to ALSO become legitimate democracies?? Also, Israel is the only alleged nuclear power which has not publicly tested its arsenal (though probably did so secretly with S. Africa). So there goes your concept of "will to use them".. They'll use them when they recognize the existence of Israel is at stake. But at the moment, they don't even want to acknowledge publicly that they even exist. Can you say the same for a non-democratic Arab nuclear armed state? Hawk

To: GST who wrote (122203)	12/27/2003 12:55:15 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Arabs"? Are the Lebanese "Arabs"? Are the Iraqis "Arabs"? Yes and yes. You are an Arab if Arabic is your first language. It's a linguistic/cultural definition. Do you have a point? I was talking about the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf, where there are two major powers, one Arab, Iraq, and one non-Arab, Iran. Every so often one makes a try for regional domination. Fortunately, Iran is in no shape for such a try right now, though they are making lots of mischief. There are three natural 'centers' of the Arab world: Egypt, with half the population, Saudi Arabia, with the oil money and Mecca, and Iraq, with population, industry, the strongest military and Baghdad, through most of Arab history the greatest Arab city, the seat of the caliphate. There is always contention between these three centers. Saddam did everything he could to claim the mastery of the Arab world, and he was utterly ruthless and feared by all. If he had been freed from sanctions (which was coming), it was only a matter of time til Saudi Arabia fell or surrendered, that regime is rotten. Then Saddam would have had 2/3rds of the worlds oil reserves, an excellent weapon to take his revenge on America with. The other small states would have bowed to him. Your advice was to sit and wait for it. Now, can you or can you not perceive that having Saddam Hussein, free from sanctions, re-armed, and dominating the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf, would be a threat to the United States?