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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (50634)	6/17/2004 10:53:32 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793970

It seems that every reason now given for going to iraq has met serious objections. 1. no wmds found 2. no real connection between saddam and 9/11 3. no active al quaeda op in iraq except in kurdish area/ 4. violation of UN resolutions as a pretext negated by fact UN didnt want to enforce their own regs. 5. relative peaceful post war dem phase. This war is a hard sell in retrospect. Knowing what you know now, would you have supported this war back then? Add to the above how this caused disunity here in the WOT. In retrospect would have been better to finish off al quaeda in south asia and then point our guns to the mideast. Given what iran has been up to, that may have been the place to start with a policy of containment. UN (edit) is dillying along while iran races toward a bomb with a NK delivery system while fomenting violence in iraq as a distraction. mike