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: dumbmoney who wrote (141189)	7/22/2004 8:12:30 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes, I think he intended to use agents, whether terrorists or intelligence agents posing as terrorists, to attack US interests in the Middle East with WMDs. I also think it probable that he would eventually abet attacks on the US directly, so long as he could preserve deniability and avoid direct retaliation. I think he intended to use intimidation backed by demonstration of power to gain regional hegemony, especially in acquiring practical control over most of Middle East oil. I wonder why he needed the capacity to hit Europe with missiles, and presume, at least, that he was trying to create a "security perimeter" that would have given him a free hand in the Middle East, by intimidating NATO against intervention. The humanitarian crisis was partially our responsibility, and therefore we could not just wash our hands of it. Sanctions were failing, and all that was left was taking him out. The logic adduced cannot justify war at any time. It may not even justify war alone. But it does provide ancillary motives for doing it.