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: Bilow who wrote (124583)	2/10/2004 1:55:01 AM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 281500

As with most people, winning is more important than truth to you. This is only human; there are many situations where it is possible and convenient to lie your way out. Your post, a good one IMO, would have survived quite well without these two sentences. --fl

To: Bilow who wrote (124583)	2/10/2004 2:05:13 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Saddam was not supposedly an "imminent" threat, then why did Bush spend so much time and effort talking up the fact that they were going to find oodles of WMDs just as soon as they got into Iraq Because he believed it, the CIA having told him that he would. The "imminence" of the threat was not directly related to whether Saddam had WMDs (everybody believed he did), but on what he intended to do with them in the near future. Since you are no fool, you obviously know this too. You are just adopting every dishonest partisan argument out there, as well as insulting me with charges that project your own style onto me. Your arguments have become as offensive as they are dishonest. I'm done wasting my time with you.

To: Bilow who wrote (124583)	2/10/2004 2:29:46 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 281500

Saddam's Capture Justifies War for Some Fri Feb 6,11:12 AM ET news.yahoo.com By CHRIS BRUMMITT, Associated Press Writer TIKRIT, Iraq - For Staff Sgt. Isaac Day and many other American soldiers serving here, ridding Iraq (news - web sites) of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) made the war worthwhile — regardless of whether anyone ever finds weapons of mass destruction. "I'm glad we got Saddam," said Day, of Tarpon Springs, Fla. "When I grow old I can tell my grandchildren that we liberated this country." That was a sentiment expressed in dozens of interviews with U.S. soldiers stationed near Tikrit, Saddam's hometown and a center of resistance to the U.S. occupation. "Saddam lived in splendor while the rest of his people had to fend for themselves," Maj. Paul Lehto of Kingston, Mass., said over lunch here. Despite widespread resistance from some of America's oldest and closest allies, President Bush (news - web sites) launched the war last March because Iraq allegedly possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Senior administration officials also said Saddam wanted to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program which was cut short by the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). However, no such weapons have been found. David Kay, who led the weapons search after the end of active combat, has said he doubted that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in recent years. "My satisfaction came when we were riding through from Kuwait and all these children were shouting 'America is number one'," said Staff Sgt. Temu Gibson from Schenectady, N.Y. Most of the 130,000 American troops stationed in Iraq have access to the Internet and other media and are aware of the growing political storm over the failure to find any weapons. A number of them say Saddam's brutality to his own people justified the war. "I have a shoebox full of pictures of people who have gone missing over the last 30 years," said one soldier who asked to be identified as Mac. "And people are getting all tied up over the WMD issue. Coming here was the right thing to do." Still, the ongoing attacks by insurgents and the continuing loss of American lives underscore the political problems facing the Bush administration over the absence of any weapons of mass destruction. Lt. Jerry England said it appeared that Bush had "played on the fear" of weapons of mass destruction in arguing the case for war. "It was a harder case to sell without them," said England, from Overland Park, Kan.