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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (114262)	9/9/2003 4:46:55 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Clearly 9/11 has nothing to do with Saddam. Why mention it? If we're talking 9/11 let's talk the nations that really support Al Q shall we? And without a real economic crisis (yet) Bush has no excuse to spend as if we were in one, nor to speed us in to a very badly chosen war, where we will spend even more. In WWII countries had been invaded, 30-40 million people have been displaced (maybe more, I can't really remember the exact number) and we went to war to protect the rights of sovereign nations. In this war we invade a sovereign nation using the novelty of "preemption". Your "what if" about Saddam (and Bush's "what if") is very weak compared to WWII. I think very weak may actually be an overstatement....