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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wizard who wrote (155993)	4/16/2003 6:41:33 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

my view is that terrorism is going to happen no matter what we do Wouldn't you say that the US can act in certain ways to reduce or aggreviate the terrorism against itself? The Iraq war wasn't just about our fight on terrorism, although stopping the fuding of Palestinian suicide bombers is a nice side effect Really? I mean, yes, Saddam did give some money to the families of the suicide bombers, but you do not believe that was even a significant part of the money that flows to Palestinians from Muslims around the world every day, right? We did it because of the potential of WMD to passed to terrorists and to show our resolve in making dictators follow international law. I agree that the invasion of Iraq was in part to show the world that the US had nothing against taking up arms, even against the whole world and in the absence of evidence or even a rational argument. And not just against dictators. To anyone who is not "with us" but the rest, who are by definition "against us". However, the potential of WMDs being passed to terrorists is a cliche that crumbles under the simplest analysis: (1) IF he has any WMDs (not yet proven), Saddam could have sold them to terrorist organisations in the past 10 years, when there was virtually no check on him. The fact he didn't shows that any possibility that he may do so in the future was so small as to be less than credible as a reason for the invasion of Iraq. Why? Probably because Islamist fundamentalists do not particularly like him that much either, and he never knew if they could be used against him. (2) There are myriad WMDs in various countries. US cannot invade them all. If anything, such invasions increase the resentment against America, and hence the probability of terrorist attacks.