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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (493129)	11/15/2003 2:18:01 PM
From: jackhach	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

If "FREEDOM" was the true issue -- we would need to invade/occupy about a dozen countries -- the other eleven don't have OIL however. -JH

To: bentway who wrote (493129)	11/15/2003 2:23:46 PM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769667

Then again, you could be wrong.... "OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD" example: " A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the "Islamic Army" of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam. Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an "understanding" with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an "understanding" with Saddam under which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against the Iraqi leader." weeklystandard.com RE:" don't think there was much sponsorship of terrorism from Iraq until we invaded the place. Saddam was a horrible guy, but it wasn't our problem. He and Al Quedia didn't get along before the war."

To: bentway who wrote (493129)	11/15/2003 3:07:14 PM
From: Machaon	Respond to of 769667

You wrote:<font color=blue>"I don't think there was much sponsorship of terrorism from Iraq until we invaded the place."<font color=black> I disagree. Saddam had shown himself to be ruthless, and mentally unstable. He had been developing weapons of mass destruction for many years, and he had used them on his own people. He was openly funding terrorist organizations. And...... he had many reasons to want to strike back at America. I think that the pre-emptive attack against Iraq has prevented hundreds of thousands of future American casualties. You wrote:<font color=blue>"He and Al Quedia didn't get along before the war."<font color=black> You say that as if it is an established fact. Do you realize that there are organizations operating in America that supply funding and support to terrorist groups? Why is it so hard to believe that the same thing was going on in Iraq, only that it was sanctioned by parts of the Saddam government? You wrote:<font color=blue>"I was responding to your post of "freeing the Iraqi people" to which I say, it's not our job, nor should it be."<font color=black> First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Pastor Martin Niemöller