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 (114357)	9/10/2003 10:29:22 AM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"It is untrue that there is absolutely no evidence." This is a lie. There was only propaganda. And you continue to propagate it. You cloak it in your own inappropriate standards of threat assessment. Do you really believe that going to war, invading another country without the UN, alienating most of the world, and setting future US generations in debt is OK based on propaganda? The threat was and is Al-Qaeda, it was not Iraq. Thanks to Bush II Al-Qaeda may well be in Iraq. Well done.

To: Neocon who wrote (114357)	9/10/2003 1:12:26 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Actually, as best we knew, Saddam already had the capacity to destroy entire American cities, by means of the unaccounted for toxins, not through conventional delivery methods, but by the use of special forces teams or terrorist groups. Sorry, but we seriously disagree on the appropriate criteria for preventive attacks. I think pre-emptive attacks are something of a contradiction. You need reasonably strong evidence of capability, planning, and intent. All the Bush folk had was weak evidence of the last.