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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (204776)	10/3/2004 9:24:30 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572751

"President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law October 31, 1998." Let's see. That was before 9/11/2001, wasn't it? You know, the day everything changed? True, you could argue that Iraq, isolated and under pretty tight control with no connection to Al Qaeda, became an even greater threat in the aftermath of those events for reasons that are at best unclear. Or you take the neocon tack that removing Saddam and installing a pro-Western democracy would have a domino effect over the whole Middle East as countries topple right and rightish in their own democracy movements. Unfortunately, Iraq seems to be a pretty stout domino... I don't think you can make the argument that this bill was intended to support military force to effect regime change. If it were, you would see terminology like "every effort necessary" or "by any means" instead of "support efforts". Given the total lack of any substantive change in the status of Iraq or events connected to Iraq in the years after this bill was signed into law makes the current incursion seem, well, excessive. Now true, if many, or heck, any, of the hijackers on 9/11 were Iraqi, it might have been different. Or if they weren't Iraqi, but trained in Iraq. Or even if one of the tickets had been charged to an Iraqi credit card. It might be different. Any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda would be surprising. UBL had Iraq on its list of Middle East regimes that needed to be replaced, and Saddam expended a lot of effort in identifying and eliminating threats to his power. Yeah, the US was probably the biggest threat. But cooperating with a group that is also a threat to him in fielding an action that is only going to get the biggest threat pretty angry at him and maybe motivated to do something doesn't seem to be a smart thing to do...

To: steve harris who wrote (204776)	10/3/2004 10:15:24 AM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 1572751

I'm going to give all you kerry supporters a free history lesson... Can't you read? Virtually everyone here agrees it is good that Saddam and his regime are gone. And everyone here is aware that there was near unanimous support for the invasion in the senate and house. What does your history lesson have to do with the reasons people are against George Bush? Let me ask you an easy question, one just for you - did John Kerry meet with the communist Viet Cong in Paris in 1970? Take your time... Elroy

To: steve harris who wrote (204776)	10/3/2004 10:21:38 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572751

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338). What's the policy of the United States regarding the Saudi regime, and how does it jive with promoting freedom and security and fighting terrorism around the world? Now that's a tough nut to crack! Elroy

To: steve harris who wrote (204776)	10/3/2004 7:58:14 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572751

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338). It says "support efforts to remove the regime" of Saddam and not, to start a pre emptive war. You guys seem to have trouble with that distinction and its not all that subtle. What's your problem?