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: paul_philp who wrote (77837)	2/26/2003 3:49:38 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Pure straw man. It's good to see we disagree. On the reasons for the war, as offered by Bush, they have been, as you know, all over the lot. They spent a very long time spinning the 9-11 connection to Saddam, leaked stuff to the papers trying to damage the serious intelligence reports which said there was none, etc. Hopefully, they've given it up. On the Al Q comment, your observation that Saddam and bin Laden "will" cooperate tactically, who knows. And it's hardly worth typing, that a future guess is certainly not a reason to invade Iraq. So, finally, I gather you are pinning your argument on Saddam's refusal to disarm. That's hardly even close to a reason to invade. It is certainly a reason to keep him pinned in, to make the sanctions smarter, etc. But not to invoke the devastation of war. Not at all. As for using Iraq as some measurement of the UN's effectiveness, let's just, for the sake of argument, say it is as you type. Wouldn't it be wise to look at the entire picture; not simply this portion.