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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Barry Grossman who wrote (174065)	4/9/2003 10:31:32 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Barry, I think we share a mutual respect, but certainly not our opinions on these issues. I hope you don't mind that I choose from your points, to disagree. It implies that I pretty much agree with the others. 1. This war was to rid the world of the Saddam regime and the threat it posed to the United States. I disagree. Iraq has never demonstrated an inclination towards terrorism, unlike many other countries. Why Iraq...? 3. You don't seem to have the slightest belief that Saddam had any WMD. I do. <and #4> He probably does, on a limited level. There are (WAG) 30 countries that have more and worse WMD, led by the US. If he had them, he would have to weaponize them, figure a way to smuggle them into the US, find someone that could handle and arm them, then figure a way to set them off in a populated area without getting discovered. He couldn't manage to use them as a weapon in a war to defeat his own country, using half way around the world is a remote scenario. 7. The loss of 1-200 American and British soldier's lives in this war was and is justified. We are a representative government. IMO, if our justification was self-defense, it's a huge stretch at best, pure BS at worst. If the justification is to liberate oppressed people, that's not at all bad. But the cost and scope becomes very high when applied as a policy to the rest of the world. If it's a family vendetta, then the cost may be too high for some folks to stomach. So lets encourage the government to say what the real policy is, so that we're not dealing with a mystery of logic. Then we (the people) can decide if the loss of (our) life is justified. 8. The loss of any innocent civilian lives is a terrible but real consequence of any war - justifiable or not. The loss of one life in an unjustified war is unjustified. _____________ The real problem, and I beleive I saw this within days of 9/11, is that the threat of terrorism has become the justification for any political end. Threat is not reality. Through the full spectrum of paranoid alert colors, there has been no non-domestic terrorism on US soil in the last 19 months, as there wasn't in the prior ~10 years. Could another tragic terrorist attack happen at any time, yes. Is it likely, no. Should a chicken sh-t fear of terrorism be the defining element of our internal politics and our foreign policy, absolutely not. Terrorism is a ghost compared with almost any threat to your safety that you can imagine. According to the rhetoric, those 100 great kids lost their lives to the threat of terrorism. The events we are witnessing will be judged by history, after all the ramifications start to play out in 2, 5, 10, 30 years. We have no way of seeing that part. I have a really bad feeling about it, you don't. That's really the difference. John