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: John Soileau who wrote (124489)	2/8/2004 11:32:11 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There were a myriad of other strategies to protect us, and they won't vanish with your handwave. There were? Please enlighten us. I know the previous strategy, containment, was clearly failing. Which is worse, Saddam as your hypothetical future shopper, or Pakistan as the _known_ worldwide WMD purveyor to America's enemies? May I point out that without our invasion of Iraq, Libya would not have caved, and we would never have learned about AQ Khan's little discount operation? Which is worse, a nuclear black market that we know about or one that we don't know about? That said, both are bad. Saddam because he had his oil revenues, a track record of violence unrestrained save by outside forces, was malicious and totally nuts. Pakistan for obvious reasons. You'll notice that we are doing our best to change Pakistan's behavior. Invading countries is not our first choice in these matters, as it was not in Iraq.