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 (114392)	9/10/2003 2:43:57 PM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If saddam buried air planes ho,ho, it is not a far reach for wmd to be buried some place in the country... The buried air planes should be enough evidence to show Saddam was very unstable and capable of anything... imo We also need to look to the French, Germans and Russians who convinced him the United States would be tied in United Nations and not invade Iraq... Perhaps if these countries played a different role we would all be in a better position.

To: Neocon who wrote (114392)	9/10/2003 2:55:59 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, your argument has been hashed and rehashed here. We could rehash the rehash but I doubt it would even slightly change the mind of a single reader. Nontheless, it is my view, just to make certain I'm understood, that you were discussing pre-emptive attack because you argued that the mere position of "tons of toxins" was some sort of justification for an attack. My argument is that, first, there was no strong evidence of such, though I was prepared to believe their existence prior to the invasion simply because they appeared to be there in 98; that there was no evidence of planning for such attacks; and there was precious little evidence of intent to make such attacks. None of that supplies justification for what should have a very high bar to pass, a pre-emptive attack. As for arguing the invasion was justified by Saddam's treatment of the Iraqi people, not only was that not offered as a prime justification but were it to be so, no justification was offered for why Iraq rather than other such venues; and we both know, to a faretheewell, no invasion would have occured, no matter how badly Saddam treated the Iraqi population, were it not for the presence of the oil and its role in the global economy. Let's keep naming spades, spades. The rest is simply smoke with no mirrors.