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: Michael Watkins who wrote (153365)	12/5/2004 12:49:19 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The only thing that stretches credulity is your assertion that it was necessary to invade Iraq in order to push Libya to declare its nuclear programs. Diplomatic talks can go on for years and years and years. Sanctions too can go on for years and years and years and are generally ineffective - for every country that observes them you can fine one that does not, and one is all you need. How many years had there been sanctions? What pushed Libya over the edge? If sanctions were so effective, why did Libya not flip in 1992 when the sanctions first started, what took 11 years? What motivated the increased surveillance that caught the Libyan ships? If that was the final reason, why didn't Libya flip in October, what made it wait two more months? Ever heard of the term "closer"?