Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

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

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dayuhan who wrote (104853)	7/11/2003 10:34:20 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) of 281500

I've no doubt that Saddam subsidized Palestinian terrorism, but I'm not convinced that this was sufficient reason to deploy American armed forces. Israel is not the 51st state, or wasn't last time I looked. Bush has been quite open about his desire to go after the terror masters. The question of whom Saddam was training at Salman Pak, and for what, remains open, as does his ties with Ansar al Islam. We had unfinished business with Saddam - it's not as if we had normal diplomatic relations with him, then suddenly decided to go to war. American armed forces have been committed to Iraq since 1990, and containment was failing. Since the status quo was untenable, the question was, go forward or withdraw? The answer was "lean forward" as Rumsfield put it. So armed forces were committed.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next