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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (283716)	4/11/2004 7:50:26 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

even you could come up with plenty of evidence for "quelling terrorism" as a reason we went into Iraq. It abounds For something that "abounds" the Bush administration has been unable demonstrate evidence that Iraq participated in state sponsored terrorism. The fact remains that any number of other countries do sponsor terrorism yet mysteriously have not been invaded. Occam's Razor You mentioned it - so lets hear it... where is the simple explanation for Bush II vs Saddam? If there was one - the Bush admin being tremendously fond of simple sound-bite quality justifications - surely Rice / Wolfowitz / Perle / Cheney / Bush would be using it all over the place. Their polling numbers could us a lift that only a straightforward answer will deliver. Persons of Iraqi nationality have no doubt been terrorists over the years, just as home grown McVey was a terrorist and a dozen or more Saudi madmen participated in 9/11. Muammar Qadhafi supported terrorism, its terrorists blew at least one plane out of the sky, a world court oversaw a conviction and passed out a fine, yet no one invades Libya. A jetliner containing mostly Canadian and Indian citizens was blown out of the sky by Sikh terrorists, and was at the time the largest single death toll from a terrorist act - yet no one invaded India. Or Vancouver. A rational reason for going to war with Iraq would be good to present to the world community - look at Afghanistan - very little opposition to that Bush response and the hunt for al Qaeda. But back to Bush vs Saddam Round II. Rewind to pre 2003 invasion. Bush's excuse was WMD and non compliance with UNSC edicts to scrap WMD and long range missile programs. The CIA ought to revise their web site since they still list this as the excuse, too. cia.gov UN Security Council (UNSC) required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow UN verification inspections. Continued Iraqi noncompliance with UNSC resolutions over a period of 12 years resulted in the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 Fast forward to today. No WMD found. No biochemical warfare programs unearthed. Next to nothing in long range missile technology discovered. Cruise missiles that can't cruise, an army that can't fight, and a leader that could not lead against an organized and well equipped armed opponent, the US armed forces. The inescapable conclusion that the world public, at faster and slower rates, is coming to, is the only reason the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq was they knew they could at least succeed in winning the initial battle - ousting Saddam Husayn. You'll have to ask brainiacs like Wolfowitz as to why they really wanted to start a conflaguration within Iraq. Almost a year ago he said this: There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. . . . I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things. Yes, removing US forces from the territory of a friendly government and moving them to an occupied country is a real big step forward. [sarcasm intended] I guess Wolfowitz was too preoccupied with his own thesis to consider that the people who actually live and "own" Iraq might not appreciate continuing occupation or becoming the dumping ground for a "Saudi" problem. The subtle but important nuance is that lowering tension in a friendly country gives the US part of what it wants - non-agression from the state (not its people), and continued energy supply. However the people there are every bit as likely to see through the nuance and decide that relocating and adding even more US troops to Iraq was not quite what they (Saudi nationalists and militant Islamists) really wanted. Regardless of what their grand plan was and has now morphed to, the implementation has been done in such a way that instead of flattening risk, the risk of new terrorism is on an exponential rise. Ironically, they may have planted the seeds of a movement in Iraq that will result in the end delivering a state capable of supporting and nourishing al Qaeda and/or other terrorist organizations. Current events seem to be custom made to deliver the catalyst required to build an Iraqi coalition against the occupying forces. Well, it is their country - what would international law have to say about that I wonder. INVESTMENT CONTENT: Markets do not like increasing risks.