SI
SI
discoversearch

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: michael97123 who wrote (145162)9/9/2004 8:58:23 AM
From: jttmab  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
But dont delude yourself into thinking that the alternative to this war was continued containmnent.

It seems [tacitly] accepted that North Korea can be contained indefinitely. What argument is there that Iraq could not be?

jttmab



To: michael97123 who wrote (145162)9/9/2004 10:14:34 AM
From: GST  Respond to of 281500
 
By taking out a low priority threat we have not only diverted our resources and attention from far greater threats, but we have accelerated and amplified the development of worse threats than existed before. Invading Iraq has given terrorists increased credibility, new allies, new territory and a training ground in which they can not only use live ammunition but they can offer the tantalizing prospect of actually getting to personally kill an American -- what a bonus for signing up now. As for nukes, no single development in recent history, save the disorderly breakup of the nuclear assets of the Soviet Union, has done more to encourage nuclear proliferation than has our invasion of Iraq. Iran is now much more likely to get "the bomb", and to do so on a crash course. Indeed, they may already have moved to acquire one or more through back channels in the former Soviet Union or North Korea. Invading Iraq was not some sort of small misjudgement -- it was catastrophic for the war on terror and efforts to halt nuclear proliferation.