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: hmaly who wrote (181956)	1/31/2004 2:57:12 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575775

>Look at my answer again. I gave a list of reasons why Iraq was chosen, over Iran, SA , or Syria. John tried to make the argument that because, according to John, Iraq supported terrorism less than the others. On the whole, that is possibly false, because Saddam used terror against his own people far more than the others. And Saddam bragged about his paying for terrorism against Israel; and while Iran, SA and Syria have programs, they all deny sponsoring terrorism. Saddam put a target on his chest, and said shoot. And we did. I'm more worried about fighting terror against our own country (which to be honest, isn't that much of a concern for me) than I am about fighting terror against Israel. Let Israel fight its own battles. On the flip side of that, I also think Israel should not be condemned for cracking down on the Palestinians in any way it sees fit (other than establishing new settlements, as that opens up its own can of worms). Fighting countries that sponsor terrorism against us should be a higher priority for us than fighting countries that sponsor terrorism against a neighbor. >What? Do you feel that Israel should be the only country that fights terrorism? Whether it is France, England,Israel, the US, etc, what difference does it make. Saddam has no right to sponsor terrorism against any civilians of any country. Why do you consider the Israelis so sub human, that we should stand by, while Saddam tries to slaughter them. Because Israel is a strong country which can fight its own battles. We have bigger fish to fry. There are so many groups that want to attack us -- Hamas and the PA (PLO), have traditionally refrained from doing so. >More leftist dribble, trying to defend the slaughter of innocent civilians, while refusing to hold people doing the killing accountable. Sounds like a great platform for the dems to run on: " Sure Saddam was killing Israelis, but they are sub human anyway, so why should we help defend them?" Who knows, that might work better than your "Gw is stupid" campaign. No no no. Not it at all. If the Israelis were not capable of defending themselves, I'd find your argument more plausible. The argument about him attacking his own people (who were, for the most part, defenseless), though I don't regard putting down uprisings as "terrorism", holds a lot more water than about him attacking Israel by proxy. -Z -Z