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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (15237)	11/5/2003 6:38:48 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793600

How is invading Iraq the best use of our time, effort, and money in terms of protecting ourselves from terrorists? You are an analyst. Take a look at where the terrorist breed in the Muslim world, who supports them, and where we could rationally start. We were already at war with Saddam, getting shot at in two "No-fly" zones, and had to settle that situation first. We could not keep up what we were doing with him and go after other ME countries first. That is why we went in. No one, I repeat, No one, in the world disagreed that Saddam had WMD. They had other reasons for not wanting us to go in, but not that one. So there we are. And we will be until this is settled. You can plan on us having troops in the ME on the day you and I go toes up on a gurney. How do we dissuade the other countries there from harboring and encouraging Terrorists? You know that Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia "may smile and smile and be a villain," on this issue. We have to keep unrelenting pressure on these regimes to make them afraid to harbor them, while we root them out. I see no other way out. If we don't do this, then we will have to retreat out of there, make some noises, and do nothing until we are hit again.

To: Lane3 who wrote (15237)	11/6/2003 1:13:40 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793600

Kholt, we invaded Iraq because Iraq combined seven unique elements not found anywhere else on earth. It wasn't one factor, but the combination of many factors which demanded we act. 1. A tyrant who had killed hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people. 2. A tryant who had demonstrated a willingness to invade other countries in the region in order to control and destabilize the area. 3. A supporter of terrorists, who quite likely would funnel money and resources to elements of Al Queada and others. 4. A harbinger of WMD who had demonstrated a willingness to use them on his own people, as well as his neighbors. Whether he was in the process of building nuclear weapons or not, the likelyhood is he would have gotten hold of them in the not too distant future, where are choices to remove him would be severely reduced. 5. A dictator, unwilling to advance democracy. 6. A dictator who was sitting on a vast reserve of oil which finances all of the above. 7. A dictator who despised the United States because we humiliated him by booting his army out of Iraq. There is no place, no region, and no nation on earth where these same factors exist. Bringing justice and peace to the middle east first demanded the removal of Saddam Hussein and his Bathist regime. Due to these reasons, and many more political in nature, such as U.N. resolutions being violated over a decade. We could, and we needed to act. The fall of the dictator of Iraq will be the catalyst which changes the middle east and brings millions toward the sanity of civilization where killing people with suicide bombs isn't something to be admired. It may take another two decades, but we are now on that road. Without the removal of Saddam, the road would have been a waste of time and energy.