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: GST who wrote (145144)	9/8/2004 8:46:19 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Senator Graham: Bush Covered Up Saudi Involvement in 9/11 truthout.org

To: GST who wrote (145144)	9/9/2004 8:18:33 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

In the Gulf War there was a coalition to be had because a sovereign state was attacked by iraq. It would have been amazing if there was not a wider coalition then. The issues this time around were far more abstract. I have said in my posts that my view and yours about this war are not that far apart less the acrimony toward bush. But dont delude yourself into thinking that the alternative to this war was continued containmnent. If the war was not fought saddam would have beat the inspections again and the europeans would have withdrawn the sanctions they were largely ignoring already. Choice was saddam out of the box or war and the only debate would then be was how dangerous saddam would become to us. Bush may have exaggerated or actually believed it was a #10 when it was only a #7. Does #7 justify war? I know you believe saddam threat was even lower than 7. It is impossible to tell now for sure but the one thing i am sure about is that containement was a load of bull and we would probably have had to fight iraq later and in that later time saddam may have aquired wmds including nukes. So if it was inevitable to have to fight and remove this guy, why not now before rather than later. mike