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: MulhollandDrive who wrote (1193)	1/13/2003 12:32:46 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

the point of invading iraq (should it become necessary) is the destruction of saddam's weapons arsenal ... the evidence of which is... where, exactly? I don't know if you are aware of this, but nuclear and chemical weapons facilities can be detected even after the material is moved with the related detection devices that measure radiation & molecules lingering in the air. Needless to say, no such discovery has been made yet. that is why the belief that regime change is essential. You've got to love the Bush administration for coming up with such catch phrases. "Regime change"... What a beautiful phrase for "Installing our puppets so we can get at the oil". saddam has had over 10 years of non-compliance with the un resolutions So does Israel. Are you suggesting Israel should be invaded for a regime change? i did not say invading iraq would "destroy" al-quaeda. But you did say the following: not only do i hold the opinion it [the war on Iraq] is relevant to bin laden and al quaeda, i also think there is a high probability that there is linkage to iraq.. Message 18437586 So you feel invading Iraq is "relevant to" fighting Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda, which is what the US should probably be doing right now rather than lusting after the oil fields of Iraq, thinly disguised as a morality war of "good" against "evil" and "regime change" to rescue the Iraqi people from their evil dictator. Really... 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. Could you explain this? How does putting a government sympathetic to US oil people in Iraq "rid the world of terrorist 'enablers'"??? Even if Saddam's state is/was one of the groups financing Al-Qaeda (and, mind you, there is NO evidence of that), that could NOT be grounds for an invasion & killing of Iraqi civilians. Need I remind you that IRA's main source of finance, for the longest time, was the Irish people living in the US? Would you say England should try to invade the US on these grounds? are you suggesting there should be a statute of limitations on the investigation and prosecution of acts of terrorism? Everything is limited to some extent by laws and international treaties, although judging by the US actions of late, you would never guess - bombing a car in Yemen out of the blue because there is a suspect in it, keeping hundreds of detainees for a year with no "competent tribunal" to decide on their prisoner of war status as commanded by the Geneva Convention, etc. I agree that religious fundamentalism needs to be fought. I just do not agree with Bush administration's gung-ho trigger-happy invasion methodology, and find despicable their using it as a pretext to further their oil agenda. the fact that oklahoma city bombing occurred 7 years ago is irrelevant to the discussion. It is, if you are talking about some eye-witnesses who saw some Middle Eastern men in Oklahoma City seven years ago. What does THAT prove? Come on...