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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (417805)	6/23/2003 3:09:11 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"But there are at least two other countries that are more of a threat than Iraq was......" That statement has little or no merit. I am sure any of us could make a case for "threats" existing in all realms of the universe, including internal. It is limited or politically corrupted thinking to assert knowledge of greater or lesser threats by these other countries. "......and the controversy is whether or not Iraq really was the threat represented by the Bushies." Well, yes this is the controversy. As the investigation, led by the forces Bush commands have revealed, the intelligence didn't paint a thorough or exact picture...duh, we have the entire US military working on it and we are still learning more each day. Intelligence has its limitations, I except that. The question is not if the threat was accurately represented but whether or not there was intentional deception designed to benefit Bush in some unethical way...you have yet to convince me that there was. ".... A pre-emptive strike just to throw out a despot is not justified...." It seems you are missing the universe for the tree hear. Reductionism is not helping. There was a broad and multifacited justification for attacking Iraq. "...that he was an imminent threat to the US." I do not believe that he was an "imminent" threat to the US, primarily because of the sanctions and attention that Saddam had been recieving for years. I do believe that if he "coulda" he "woulda" and that it would be a matter of time if left to his own resources. This was a one time opportunity for the US...I am glad we took it. "I'm sure you thought Saddam had it because of the PR spin of Bush....don't you feel deceived now that you know Bush has evidence to the contrary and that he used forged documents to make his case?" I am not convinced that this is a true statement.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (417805)	6/23/2003 4:54:44 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<<We wouldn't give Blix even two more weeks because the danger was so great.... >> Wrong, weather was the main timing factor. Two more weeks would have become 8 more months.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (417805)	6/23/2003 5:00:11 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I never thought that the danger was "imminent". I thought that eventually, if left to his devices, Saddam would use terrorists as proxies to attack the United States and its installations, and that he would use WMDs in conventional delivery systems to intimidate the countries in the Saudi peninsula. I also thought he might fire some at some of his neighbors, of course. In any event, I considered the eventual risk too great, and the inspections too ineffectual, since he was playing cat and mouse, and only made concessions under US pressure. I also figure that intent mattered more than stockpiles, since he could easily replace stockpiles. So to me there is no big controversy........