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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. T. who wrote (642457)	10/11/2004 10:49:53 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769670

I think that we would have some justification in going into Iran, Syria, or Saudia Arabia, but that there are many factors to be weighed. In the case of Iraq, we already were undertaking responsibility for containment, and already had various controversies arising over sanctions, so it made sense to get it over with. Sure, fighting sanction does not mandate war, but it makes it more likely, since war is the next option should sanction fail, assuming we are serious about the matter over which sanctions were imposed. The Clinton Administration was getting the same kind of intelligence Bush did, and, on that basis, in 1998, made it an aim of US policy to promote regime change in Iraq. That is how threatening it was considered. After 9/11, it seemed wise to close down the threat of Iraq once and for all, for fear it would pass off WMDs to terrorists. Clinton himself has said he would have done what Bush did, in pursuing Iraq, except that he says he would have given the inspectors a few monthe more.