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.

Technology Stocks : Ascend Communications (ASND) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tim Luke who wrote (34000)	2/9/1998 12:35:00 AM
From: sepku	Respond to of 61433

>>>Do you have a theory why we did not finish the job? We must of known that if we let him live there would be future problems.<<< If you terminate Saddam, you leave a vaccuum of power, and who knows what other crazy fool takes his place. Not to mention that this would surely piss off the Iraqi people and place their support solidly behind the new leader (or Saddam, if he survives). Also, if you assassinate a foreign leader, you open the US up to a retaliatory attack, in which the President would be an easy target since he is so visible to the people. I still think Bush should have supported the Kurdish rebels when they asked for US aid, instead of allowing Saddam to play the two rival factions against one another -- they could have ousted Saddam when he was weakest. >>>What are the chances of Iraq having Nukes? This is all mind blowing to me if in fact he does have a nuclear bomb what's to stop him from using it if and when we attack?<<< There's always the possibility he might have nuclear capability, however I doubt he has means of long-range delivery (N.America). Many countries today have nuclear arms, but limited ability to deliver the warheads. The likely target would be Israel...in which case they would retaliate in kind. >>>I think we know a very small amount of what is really going on over there and what weapons of mass destruction he has.<<< I'm confident that the US intelligence has a pretty damn good idea on what Iraq has and/or is developing. There have been spy satellites in orbit over Iraq since the Gulf War, monitoring deployment of ground forces, etc., as well as communications. I believe this is exactly why the US is so adamant in forcing Iraq to allow the UN inspectors into key areas of Iraq. Did you hear about the satellite photos showing UN inspectors entering sensitive Iraqi facilities, only to reveal trucks exiting at the rear, at the same time? Style Pts.

To: Tim Luke who wrote (34000)	2/9/1998 3:52:00 AM
From: Neil H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 61433

Tim -OT I live in Dhahran,Saudi Arabia as I did during the Gulf war. Work for oil company. The reasoning for not taking out Saddam at the time were several, all of which made sense: 1. We went there to protect oil assets in the region and liberate Kuwait. This was achieved. We did not have coalition backing to destroy Iraq as a nation. 2. Taking out Saddam would have meant many more casualties, possible street fighting in cities, which could get ugly and costly. Remember we as a country were still not primed to take large number of casualties. 3. We would probably have had to be an occupying force to stabilize the country, which could have turned bad over time. 4. We have an interest in keeping Iraq somewhat strong to offset Iran, who is not our friend. We do not want to weaken Iraq too much. Iran, Kurds, Syria and others may take the opportunity to take territory. Neither Turkey, Iran or Iraq want to see Kurds have their own country as all have minority populations. In all, Bush had a huge victory and had achieved what was set out. Unknowns and potential costs of going all the way were not worth it politically at the time. Now back to Ascend. Neil

To: Tim Luke who wrote (34000)	2/9/1998 11:22:00 PM
From: Jack Whitley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 61433

<<Do you have a theory why we did not finish the job? We must of known that if we let him live there would be future problems. What are the chances of Iraq having Nukes? This is all mind blowing to me if in fact he does have a nuclear bomb what's to stop him from using it if and when we attack?> President Bush was getting queasy about overstepping the bounds of the UN resolution to "eject Iraq from Kuwait", not conquer Iraq. Colin Powell helped him decide by telling him it had become a slaughter of Iraqi soldiers on the "highway of death" leading back to Baghdad. They were both afraid of losing the coalition of nations put together (Arab nations). If the "weapons of mass destruction card" had been played at that point, we could have justified marching to Baghdad and Saddam would have had to flee (if he could get asylum, he was having trouble with that). Hindsight is 20/20, but to me it is painful to have spent all that money and time to get troops over there, and not eliminate him. Air strikes alone will not change the current situation. I would say that now if he used a nuke or even biological weapons other than mustard gas, we'd give him and the citzens 24 hours to vacate his city, then we'd torch it. I think he knows this. Regarding networking, I sure like Ascend's outlook going forward. jww