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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (46709)	5/24/2004 10:09:02 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794009

Somebody might have made this argument, but it certainly wasn't me. I didn't say it was you. I said the argument had wide currency in the anti-war camp. Would you say, with benefit of hindsight, that I was wrong? [about a benefit to AQ] I would say that everybody needs to wait for another few years to have hindsight. There are obviously double dynamics: the presence of American troops acts as a magnet for jihadis; on the other hand, these undertrained jihadis have no fun at all if they try to ambush Marines. If in the outcome, Iraq goes the way of Lebanon, it will be a benefit to AQ. If a stable Iraq emerges, and reform continues to be on the table in Arabia (which it is now, and never was before), it is not a gain for AQ. I remember writing that if AQ could throw any Arab leader to the sharks, Saddam would probably be the one they'd choose. There I disagree. It would be the House of Saud, no question.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (46709)	5/25/2004 9:41:54 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794009

The question that needed to be asked was whether the Iraqi CBW capability - the weapons in question hardly deserve to be called WMD - constituted a threat to the US. An absolutely proper queston, whose answer is inherent in the manner you framed it. Nevertheless, your question is incomplete in an enormous respect. In fact, it is almost meaningless when compared to the truly relevant question: Was Saddam, an aggressive megalomaniac, able to make or obtain nuclear weapons in the near future? Everything else pales by comparison, even your sole question.