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: Hawkmoon who wrote (13421)	12/9/2001 3:04:33 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 281500

I have always thought Kuwait was an internal arab issue, from the point of view of US??

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (13421)	12/9/2001 3:39:14 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree with you that the US does not necessarily "need" the smoking gun from the perspective of asserting it's military toward Iraq. The violations of the armistice alone are sufficient. The problem with that is imo...."timeliness". Had we initiated our attack at the time when Saddam ousted the inspectors, we probably would have better international support (assuming the military attack is made solely on that basis). As you say, it may be difficult to be "sold" several years after the fact. The smoking gun of financial ties to the terrorist network would be most beneficial in keeping the alliance "in line".

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (13421)	12/9/2001 3:51:17 PM
From: Gulo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

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. No, that would not be sufficient evidence. I think it is dangerous to make the leap from "Iraq allowed radicals to train" to "Iraq is an accomplice to Sept 11." To begin with, what groups were trained, and why? Evidence presented so far ties the Sept 11 attacks to Bin Laden's group, which almost rules out much involvement by Saddam. So called "ties" between Iraq and Al Queda do not seem significant. More relevantly, I don't think it would have been in Saddam's interest to encourage a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the last year or two. I would have believed it 5 years ago, but not now, given the progress Iraq has made in swaying world opinion vis a vis it sanctions. All he had to do was keep his head down, and the U.N. would have eased the sanctions over the next few years. The status quo has proven sustainable for the beneficiary of the "mother of all political miscalculations". The U.S. (and the rest of the civilized world) may have many reasons to get rid of Saddam, but the convoluted attempts to tie him to Sept 11 appear to me to be disingenuous. It may be that the U.S. national interest (or the military-industrial complex's interest <g>) requires an an attack on Iraq, but I am a firm believer that public support should not be bought with half-truths. I know truth is the first casualty of war, but shouldn't casualties be treated and recovered? Here's to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If it turns out he was involved, recalculate him. But use the right math.