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: carranza2 who wrote (139341)	7/8/2004 2:42:14 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"I don't think Iraq will be a haven for terrorists like Afghanistan" youve been reading about Falluja, i hope I see the "irrational" Saddam is more important than anything else. thanks, at least it makes your position clear

To: carranza2 who wrote (139341)	7/8/2004 3:03:30 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As far as your "ifs," I don't think Iraq will be a haven for terrorists like Afghanistan. We're going to have troops there to prevent such a thing from happening. I think this risk is not worth losing sleep over. Once again your conclusions are far ahead of your facts, unless you meant that the terrorists in Iraq wouldn't operate openly as they did in pre-invasion Afghanistan. The truth is that having troops in place means nothing unless there is sufficient intelligence for those troops to identify and neutralize the terrorists. Guess what, that only occurs when the civilian population is in your corner and becomes your eyes and ears. Guess what else, remember all that talk about how we aren't getting sufficient "intelligence" in Iraq? Who do you think the civilian population is protecting? When you say our troops will "prevent such a thing from happening," please think again. Either that or explain just how our troops will "prevent" such a thing in some manner other than with an unexplained and seemingly dogmatic conclusion. PS, I think most people would agree that "the risks posed by an irrational, nuclear-armed Saddam" would have been substantial. Like all risks, however, the degree of risk is dependent not only upon the extent of harm that could occur, but also by the likelihood of such harm. For instance we all go outside, even though people are killed by lightning every year. We all drive, even though people are killed by cars every year. We all fall in love, even though many murders are crimes involving jealous rages. When you can meet the second half of the risk test and make a case that the odds of Saddam becoming nuclear armed and then having a motive or the insanity to stick a finger in the eye of the one million pound wmd gorilla, (that's us by the way,) then come back to me with your fear basis for our actions in Iraq. Until then I'll go with the other more likely geopolitical oil and power rationales for why we invaded.