Politics for Pros- moderated 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 : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LindyBill who wrote (124560)	7/11/2005 11:54:34 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) of 793914

It seems to me that folks like myself who bought into that line from the beginning were routinely chastising folks who said there was not wmd and that saddam could be contained. Folks like nadine have been pointing our for some time that there were other reasons just as valid to have taken out saddam. And she makes a good case but so do folks who opposed the war when i was supporting it given the history of the lack of wmd. My prime reason to support the war was the wmd threat and saddams ability to anonymously hand off this stuff to terrorists. Without wmd my support for the iraq war would have been questionable although a UN inspection regimen and then the weakening of sanctions would have troubled me greatly. On another front, NK said for the first time the other day that elimination of their nukes was on the table. I think they may try to follow the china model although that would be wrenching for them. US needs to separate Asian NK from the axis of evil as it did pakistan. That leaves only iran to deal with and even with the chaos in the sunni triangle, things would have gotten a whole lot better if NK gives up its nuke ambitions for a shot at the brass ring (economic). Mike

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next