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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (1178)	1/13/2003 11:48:59 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

the point of invading iraq (should it become necessary) is the destruction of saddam's weapons arsenal. that is why the belief that regime change is essential. saddam has had over 10 years of non-compliance with the un resolutions (the onus of proof is on saddam, since there are documented bio and chem weapons presently unaccounted for.) i have already stated i believe it is in the national security interest not to disclose all evidence we have while we are engaged in active war...i'm unaware of what country you are from, but in the US we have always believed that there is a level of classified information which eventually over time can be disseminated under the freedom of information act. i did not say invading iraq would "destroy" al-quaeda. i consider the regime change and dis-arming iraq to be an ancillary, yet extremely important move in ridding the world of the enablers and enable-ments of terrorists. however i do not see invading iraq as essential to that cause. invading iraq for the purpose of disarmament is sufficient unto itself. i posted the article that shows a potential linkage of the iraqis and oklahoma city...the fact that oklahoma city bombing occurred 7 years ago is irrelevant to the discussion. are you suggesting there should be a statute of limitations on the investigation and prosecution of acts of terrorism?