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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (160192)	2/6/2003 4:11:53 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578331

There are a lot of monsters out there but the question that never gets answered satisfactorily.......Why Saddam? Does it occur to you that our national security people have judged Saddam to be one of several huge threats to the United States? Which national security? Its my understanding that the FBI and CIA are in sync on this one; that al Qaeda is that entity that threatens the US, not Saddam. This is the case, not only with those in the administration, but people outside the administration like Joe Biden, people who have been critical of the administration's policy, like Larry Eagleberger, like Brent Scowcroft, Norman Schwarzkopf. Do you think your judgment on the matter is superior to theirs? It well could be. I am not you. I don't assume others are smarter or better prepared to do the right thing by me. Many assumed that the US knew what it was doing in Vietnam. It took college kids to bring the truth out on that one. The "oil" argument is bogus. If oil were THE goal, we'd have gone to Baghdad last time. The US interests are, frankly, at this point much bigger than the oil. Then why do you think its the issue that keeps getting brought up? I'm not sure what liberals are envisioning here: We occupy Iraq, "capture" the oilfields, and steal the Iraqis money as the oil is sold off? Or what? That's not the point.......the point is that American intentions are suspect because they don't compute. What's surprising is that you don't see it. Even after Powell spoke, there still is not compelling reason to start a war. However, the hawks won because Saddam has done enough crap to make it not worth defending him in light of the Bush administration's desperate need to depose him. "It's about the oil" makes a great rallying cry for the liberals; but if you give it just a LITTLE thought, the entire concept is ridiculous. Turning this into something to ridicule allows you to gloss over the whole issue. This is war is very dangerous to the well being of this country. ted