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 (116117)	10/3/2003 11:42:13 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Everyone did not agree on the degree of danger. There was, in fact, so much disagreement that we were forced to go with our coalition of the rather pathetic willing. And we are now finding out we don't have quite enough willing to get us where we need to go. The "evidence" of a link between Al Q and the "Iraqi regime" is tenuous, and, proves nothing in terms of their danger to us. Of course you could hope that some proof of a real conspiracy to aid Al Q in hurting the US will turn up, if you cared very much about poor Mr. Bush, but right now all you've got is hope. And please, don't think you are running on anything other than hope, at this point. You may get facts at some point, but please, don't count on it. I would be very surprised if Saddam was very interested in helping out an organization that would destroy him, if it became really successful. Saddam just wasn't that stupid.

To: Neocon who wrote (116117)	10/3/2003 12:12:57 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<Everyone agreed, including the French, on the danger of the Hussein regime. The only controversy was on whether to continue with containment (which, incidentally, we and the British bore the brunt of) or go to war. Quite reasonably, the Administration thought that the Iraqi situation had to be resolved in order to make progress in the region, and to give us a freer hand in the long run. And thus, we went to war......>>> A good summary: Terrorists were getting aggressive,exceedingly dangerous, threatening our economy , embassies, and people. It is possible we could have maintained the no-fly zones for the next ten years, at great expense and discomfort to nearby nations ,provided the the UN , after continuing inspections,did not decide that Saddam was no threat to anyone. Beyond Iraq,we will need trained, experienced, and younger troops to continue the war on terror. We now have them, still learning, especially in locating and identifying the enemy and learning to survive. And the Defense budget needed strengthening, as it has been Its a matter of positioning, for the work ahead. Just the end of the beginning, as will be noted from the next major terrorist attack somewhere. Sig