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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jjkirk who wrote (14234)	3/9/2003 11:02:19 AM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

I have two points of difference with this piece. One it presented a false choice - that we invade Iraq now or we do nothing to stop terrorism. Second its conclusion that invading Iraq will reduce the threat of terrorism. Little thought is required to formulate a thesis that the terrorist threat may well be enhanced by an Iraqi invasion. JMO lurqer

To: jjkirk who wrote (14234)	3/9/2003 5:09:11 PM
From: Mannie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

JJ, thanks for posting that piece... Two points. 1.) I still have seen zero evidence of a connection between Saddam and the other islamic terrorist groups. And we have seen no evidence of a nuclear program..that would seem quite difficult to hide. 2.) Attacking Iraq without overwhelming evidence of an iminant threat, may simply inflame Islamic hate and steel their resolve to attack us. I think we are basing our war plans on too many maybe's, and too few facts. Let's be a little more creative here...too much collateral damage with the shock and awe scenario, and too much lasting hate....If we focus on helping the Iraqi populace despite Saddam, I think we will find a much more creative solution. scott