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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (90547)	12/3/2004 11:01:50 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

"There were then and still are a variety of reasons we went to war.......the uncertainty over the WMD was only the most compelling.... About "conflation"......9/11 changed the way we need to evaluate threats to this nation.....and Irsaq's behavior put it in the crosshairs.....supporting terror, financing terror, providing haven etc.....so there's no conflation...its a simple application of the Bish doctrine....saddma had 12 years to clean up his act...he gambled and he lost...." The people of the US understood that WMD's were "most compelling". The people of the US thought there was a "threat". Why? Because their leadership told them there was. The people of the US did not think they were going to war to stop violations of the no-fly zone, or Saddam's support of terrorists in Iran and Israel. The people of the US would not have found those situations very laden with threat to themselves, or very "compelling" which is why the war was not sold to them using those issues. It is quite clear why most of the people in the US supported the war. They thought Iraq was planning on attacking them directly, and they thought Iraq had been involved in 9/11. The polls make it very clear what people believed, and when they believed it, and WHY they believed it. There is really no way around that.