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 (223773)	3/13/2005 7:26:58 AM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 1573716

Of course, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 in terms of planning. However, after 9/11 the prevailing thought process was that this was a war on terror. To be successful in a war on terror, you have to go after all sources of funding and succor of terror. In addition, you had to ensure that all sovereign nations who formed a nexus between terror and WMD, were denied their ability to operate. Saddam had a WMD program prior to the sanctions. The papers recovered from Iraq after the war also proved that he had every intention to reconstitute his WMD program from his dual use facilities, if he ever got the chance. Combine that with the fact that his secret service nurtured ties with terrorists. Zarqawi was known to operate out of Iraq (and Iran for that matter). In addition, Saddam publicly funded the families of suicide bombers inside Israel. But even if you strip away all that, Saddam had flouted all U.N. resolutions and had made a mockery of the U.N.'s effectiveness. It was time for Saddam to go. Back to the war on terror. If you are to fight this effectively, you have to take the fight to the enemy. That's war strategy 101. Choosing the battlefield provides strategic advantage. We chose Iraq. The advantage is having a staging ground right in the center of the Middle East. Why do you think Iran is getting increasingly desperate? They fear our ability to strike them from so close. Why is Syria starting to cooperate over Lebanon? Same thing. The knife is at their necks and all the leaders in the Middle East know it. By striking Iraq, it sent a very loud and clear message to all the region's bad actors that the U.S. had taken the gloves off and was going to duke it out with terror organizations, from the non-sovereign ones like Al Qaeda to the sovereign ones like Iran, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, etc. Let's face it. Prior to Iraq, the Middle East was calcified. There hadn't been any meaningful movement towards reform in decades. Through the U.S.'s actions over the last several years, the whole region is now in a state of flux. If that flux can be guided towards self-determination, then the whole world will benefit.