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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (118771)	11/6/2003 5:11:28 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, there are all sorts of killers in charge of countries in this world. Saddam was no more threatening than several other countries, and it is not apparent that he posed any credible threat to the US. You are frustrated because you cannot prove he was a threat, and you cannot prove he was a threat because there is really no evidence that he WAS a threat to the US. We invaded a country that was of no great importance in terms of terrorism. If you look at where Al Qaeda gets its money, and where researchers think its members are lurking, Iraq really wasn't high on the list, or even on the list. This war cannot be justified on the basis of a threat to the US. I see now that some people, who wanted to defend the war, and who have realized this, are now saying that even though it posed no threat, the ME did pose a threat in general, and Iraq is just our first step in changing the ME to democracies, so we won't be threatened by OTHER countries, and those nasty terrorists that live in them. Now, while that's really unrealistic, at least it's a bit more honest than what you are trying to argue. Saddam had no clear intent to do anything, except stay in power. It's pretty clear he really wanted to do that. And he was willing to cut deals to hang on by his finger nails. But a clear intent to attack the US? I don't think so.