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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (155513)	1/7/2005 1:59:11 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

Clinton did not have an invade Iraq policy. And there was absolutely no evidence of a threat. The complete lack of a threat proved to be an embarrassment to Bush, so the ludicrous explanation that emerged was that Saddam had intentions of creating a threat at some point in the future. There is no grounds for military action on the basis of what a person without any means of acting might or might not be thinking of doing in the future. The US had no grounds to "defend itself" from Saddam. It did have grounds to pressure the UN to enforce the terms of the ceasefire that followed the first gulf war -- but that would have required something that Bush did not want to do -- reject US unilaterlaism.