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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (181924)	1/30/2004 2:20:18 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574854

re: ...but there were many other benefits of taking out Saddam, a well-known supporter of terrorism and a major source of anti-American sentiment. It's a big price to pay to take out a paper tiger that didn't support terrorism, at least not on a level of, say, Iran. SH and BL didn't get along; it was the secular v. the fundamental thing. If that was the basis of the decision, then SA would be the place to have gone. They support more terrorism in a day than Iraq did in a year. And I know you don't think we should go to war with every country that happens to be "anti-American". We could start with most of Europe. No, Bush wants more bases in the ME. He wants more bases because he want to protect the oil flow. That and SH dissed his father. But you can't sell a war on those kind of justifications, so the WMD's and imminent were the thing. John