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: jttmab who wrote (145169)	9/9/2004 10:52:03 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

RE: NK. Though as you say it "has been contained for 50 years," it did not have nukes during those 50 years, did it? The regional powers along with us are seeking a solution and i certainly dont have any objection to participating in that effort. Re: Iraq, Thats my point. You dont need a missile. Just a hand off of a suitcase will do. Iraq under saddam would have given stateless terrorists a base in which to work and to make mutually beneficial between them. I am not saying its a given, but it had to be of concern both then and now. And by the way sanctions were the heart of containment policy toward iraq and with that going away all that was left was the military option. So Saddam perhaps attacks kuwait and we fight gulf war 2, probably without the coalition we had in #1 because perhaps saddam threatens other arab states and europeans with wmds, terror attacks from his new friends. A million scenarios. But the good news is that he and his regime are finished even if there is bad news daily from iraq--at least that has been accomplished. So we should be rooting for the same thing which is the ultimate success of the operation. mike