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: MulhollandDrive who wrote (13419)	12/9/2001 2:33:25 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

couldn't they be considered paid mercenaries of states such as Iraq? That seems to be the "smoking gun" that the Bush administration is searching for. They may have classified evidence that leads to such a suspicion, but depending on the source (agent, method of collection.. etc)and the importance of maintaining its secrecy, it may be more of a case of finding "public" information that is verifiable. Either way, the US has a strong case for flexing its military muscle against Saddam on the basis of his violations of the 1991 armistice that ended the Gulf War. And there is every desire to have a stable and far less threatening regime in power in Iraq. Like any other political decision, it depends on how it's "sold" to the general public, and those nations (government and population) in the region. As for the 707, it's been alledged by former Iraqi intelligence officers who have defected, that Saddam was providing a training facility for certain groups. This would be sufficient evidence, if verified, that Iraq provided aid and support for terrorist organizations to conduct hijackings (even if they were directly part of the WTC attack). This could provide sufficient legal justification to lauch strikes against him. Let's also recall that Bush Sr. has stated he beleived that Saddam's regime would fall as a result of Iraq's defeat in the war. That's why he was unwilling to alienate other coalition members who were unwilling to extend the war to toppling Saddam. They didn't want to be set a precedent for their own regimes being overthrown and figured he would fall anyway. But it would seem that the coalition partners made the "mother of all political miscalculations" regarding the vulnerability of his regime... :0) Hawk