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: epicure who wrote (139297)	7/8/2004 1:30:32 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm sure they wouldn't agree with me. But are we deciding US foreign policy on that basis? No, we are not, but I didn't say that Saddam's secular government was A Good Thing, like you did. That bit of wisdom deserved response. As far as your "ifs," I don't think Iraq will be a haven for terrorists like Afghanistan. We're going to have troops there to prevent such a thing from happening. I think this risk is not worth losing sleep over. I don't think that Iraq will fragment, but it might. As a NATO member, I don't think Turkey will be drawn in. There are too many links to the West and to the US which will prevent that from happening. Even if it happens, it beats a nuclear-armed Iraq lead by Saddam. I wouldn't have a problem with a theocracy, if it is a peaceful one. Every one of the risks you posit are overwhelmed by the risks posed by an irrational, nuclear-armed Saddam.