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: carranza2 who wrote (139163)	7/7/2004 3:38:39 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Tell me again, knowing that given enough cash it might very well be possible to obtain nuclear weapons without the need to develop them internally, why Saddam was not a threat. " I will tell you that he was no more of a threat than any other leader who could do the same, and some other leaders who have them already. So what's the point? Many things are possible, but the invasion of a country requires more than possibilities.

To: carranza2 who wrote (139163)	7/7/2004 4:48:44 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Tell me again, knowing that given enough cash it might very well be possible to obtain nuclear weapons without the need to develop them internally, why Saddam was not a threat. So you are saying that if a rogue state or stateless group had enough money they would choose to buy generic nuclear weapons rather than develop their own brand . And the reason is cost benefit, improved productivity, negative opportunity cost, market control of prices, etc. Yes this is a threat. And not just Saddam, NKorea, Iran, Syria and the rest of the usual suspects. Yes, I agree, It is a threat. Rascal @InvadeThemAll.com