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: beach_bum who wrote (212167)	11/21/2004 10:33:08 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578294

Yes, I consider it to be deceitful, when the govt gives different reasons to different people at different times (based after being proven wrong on many of these). The only one there is any doubt about is WMD, and I think everyone realizes the WMD programs were in place and would have been a problem at some future date. But it is silly to suggest that you don't go to war over multiple reasons. Just as there were multiple reasons for going to war against Germany in WWII, there were multiple reasons for moving against Iraq. It is simplistic to assume that there will only be one set of transgressions to drive military action. In the current instance, we obviously should have gone back to war against Iraq in 1998, but we had a president who was motivated solely by politics and couldn't bring himself to act decicively. His delay undoubtedly cost lives. After 9/11, there was just one more reason to do it. - Saddam was killing 5,000 people a month by virtue of outright murder and allowing his people to starve and die from lack of neccessary medical treatment. - They were shooting at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone. - They had refused to allow weapons inspections to continue, in direct violation of a ceasefire agreement. - There was SOME terrorist training going on with Iraq government support within Iraq - They were paying the families of Palestinian terrorists - The man was a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people over the years. - There was every indication he would be succeeded by even worse. Any one of these, taken alone, would be sufficient reason to go to war against Iraq. But the one reason that is more important than any other? - Because removing Saddam can be part of a solution to the problem of anti-Americanism in the Middle East. It really doesn't matter that Saddam was not involved in 9/11. The question is whether his removal can prevent future 9/11s, and clearly it can. That's really all we need to know. The president's most important job is to protect Americans.