SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: epicure who wrote (4100)3/27/2003 6:05:30 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 21614
 
no shit?!?!

you need to go back and re-read what I said. I didn't state nor imply that it was the Iraqis that were involved in 9/11. I stated that 9/11 was the blueprint. And to my knowledge, Canada hasn't recently threatened the U.S. However, I'm pretty sure that Saddam Hussein has threatened the U.S. And now that he has the blueprint and the means to do so, a pre-emptive neutralization of the threat (surprised that they haven't used that euphemism yet) is an expected strategy. 9/11 changed the rules on how the U.S. must defend itself.

Iraq is neither a retaliatory action, nor is it a humanitarian effort. It is about neutralizing a (perceived) threat.



To: epicure who wrote (4100)3/27/2003 7:44:48 PM
From: Alan Smithee  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21614
 
I guess using your logic we might as well have attacked Canada. They are closer, after all- and they have about as much connection to 9/11.

I don't recall reports of any members of the Canadian intelligence or security agencies meeting with the hijackers. Can't say the same when it comes to Iraqi security agents.

usnews.com

observer.co.uk