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: Elroy who wrote (205147)	10/5/2004 10:29:42 AM
From: brian1501	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572749

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. You and I obviously have different points of view on this. 9/11 was about taking terrorism seriously. Islamic fundamentalists hate us, but they can hate all they want as long as they don't hurt us like they did before. I'm all for trying to fix that problem too, but my first priority is to keep WMDs out of the hands of these people that hate us. Do you think anyone will be able to hijack a plane and fly it into a building again? No, nobody will take that now. They've played that card. If they could get some bio-weapons though, they'd use that in a heartbeat. Iraq was the most promising source for those weapons, and the justification for regime change already existed there. SA has no WMD programs for us to worry about, and the regime change justification isn't there. Brian