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: GST who wrote (120842)	12/2/2003 2:00:45 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<You may chose to believe it all means nothing.> It does not add up to a top national security priority -- not by a long shot, and that has been my point from day one. We cannot afford to do everything. We must have priorities True. And we could not, for many reasons, make a frontal assault on either Iran or Saudi Arabia, the central breeding grounds of terrorism. Whereas we had considerable unfinished business in Iraq, and a steadily deteriorating "containment" situation that required our attention, apart from considerations of international terrorism. You forget about that. So we could attack Iraq, and we had several pressing reasons to do so. Did you ever read Ken Pollack? He lays out the reasons. but rather because it fit the political and ideological agenda of the neocons and their partners, the Iraqi exiles who egged them on and who now want to reap the spoils of war through political and economic control of "the prize". You may chose to believe that Bush is an ideological prisoner of a neocon clique, and that we are spending lives and hundreds of billions in Iraq to somehow make money, but this is strictly an article of faith - you are going to be very hard pressed to come up with evidence. Whereas I believe that Bush urgently wants to do something to prevent another 9/11, and looking around, Afghanistan and Iraq were chosen as things that could be done and ought to be done. I think my belief is a lot simpler than yours and fits the available evidence much better. If you think Bush is being run by anybody but himself, you haven't got the measure of this administration yet, imo.