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: JohnM who wrote (41360)	9/1/2002 12:33:13 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The public discussion of whether to invade Iraq has, as one of its cornerstones, whether he can be implicated in 9-11. It was my impression that these stories were brought forward to make that tie. They don't. No, this is your own idea, John. The cornerstone of the discussion whether to invade Iraq rests on the judging the likelihood of Saddam's getting and using WMDs, passing them to terrorists for deniability, successfully evading attempts at containment, etc. The argument does not rest on punishment, but on prevention.

To: JohnM who wrote (41360)	9/1/2002 12:33:50 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The problem with that is it doesn't help me think about the Iraqi situation. Sorry to hear that. The story should be part of the tapestry of facts, opinions, and inferences drawn from facts which should assist you in reaching conclusions. An open mind would conclude that Saddam's interest in harming the US, but doing so stealthily, would be served by aiding terrorists with links to him that are difficult to detect. What made you think that I posted the Christian Science story simply to suggest a 9/11 link? I do think that the link to Al Qaeda will be made, perhaps even to your satisfaction. You do appear to have a thing about me. Same ol' tone. Oh, please, here we go again. Just respond to my posts without the ad hominem stuff.

To: JohnM who wrote (41360)	9/1/2002 1:05:34 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It occurs to me that perhaps you may not be aware that Bush is legally authorized by Congress to go after those who provided safe harbor to Al Qaeda. Saddam's aid and assistance to AQ is sufficient. A direct link to 9/11 is not necessary, as I read this broadly written law. Senate Joint Resolution 23, which Bush signed into law (Public Law 107-40) authorizes him to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." campxray.net