Foreign Policy Discussion Thread 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 Policy Discussion Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (5682)	7/20/2003 10:15:26 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (3) of 15991

"....You spend an inordinate amount of time defending the veracity of Saddam's regime in the face of all the documented lies they've told us over the past 12 years, Why is That?...." First off I am defending no one here not even Saddam. The reason I discuss Saddam is because this President has been very successful in getting some American people to believe that Saddam is at the center of a majority of the terrorist problems. To me Saddam is not such a significant factor in the "war on terrorism" as he is made out to be. We have Yasser Arafat, Abu Sayyaf, Al Jawahiri and off course Osama and Mullah Omar who are more of a threat to the US than Saddam. If Saddam was a threat they why was he on the US payroll when Reagan and the senior Bush were Presidents. He was killing his own then not now. So here we are having a victory dance kidding ourselves that getting Saddam out of power is a significant victory in the war on terrorism. I don't think that even the British are thinking that way anymore today. "....And what proof do you have that he had no ties to Al-Qaeda?....." Even the CIA has no "credible proof" that Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeida. With all the intelligence failures since 9/11, why do you think that we should believe our intelligence> After all, in a democracy we have a right to doubt and question veracity. Is it unpatriotic to do so? Our intelligence believed that they were on Osama's trail during the thick of the Afghan war. And Osama escaped with his body under arrest. Hoodwink is what they call this, is it not? So with this hoodwink how can we trust the competency of our current intelligence. Again on the issue of those Orange alerts etc. They "suddenly and abruptly" went away. Doesn't their sudden abatement put a doubt in anybody's mind? "....And why should we limit our responses merely to Al-Qaeda, while excluding those who have supported other terrorist groups who have attacked the US, and American citizens, such as Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas??..." What about going after the big ones. Osama, Abu Sayyaf etc. And also Yasser Arafat. I mean Yasser and his supporters have sent a clear message to others in the world that he is untouchable in spite of his ties to terrorism. Why not take him up? I am for going and getting him. Instead we play the timid game where Bush refuses to meet with him but would instead be meeting with Abu Mazen. And why not walk into and flush out the terrorists from Pakistan where there is groudswell support for the Islamic fundamentalist brand of terrorism.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next