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: brian1501 who wrote (204972)	10/5/2004 4:04:54 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572724

If the 2nd Iraq war was a result of a change in paradigm caused by 9/11, why did it make more sense to invade Iraq, change the regime, and install a democratic society there than in Saudi Arabia? Answer that one please. About 16-18 (how many?) UN resolutions. That, and Saudi Arabia wasn't persuing any WMD programs. Read my question again - it says if 9/11 presented a "new paradigm", why did attacking Iraq make more sense than Saudi? 9/11 was about Islamic fundamentalist terrorists attacking the US. The SOURCE of Islamic fundamentalism is Saudi Arabia, and the majority of the attackers on 9/11 were Saudis. 9/11 had nothing to do with WMD programs. The UN resolutions you mention were about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and its aftermath (not 9/11). The appropriate 2nd response to 9/11 (after Afghanistan) would have been regime change and installation of free democracy in Saudi A, not Iraq. The conclusion (clear to me) is that the 2nd Iraq war (which was over when Saddam's regime collapsed) had very little to do with 9/11.