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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Quincy who wrote (36687)	6/16/2005 4:33:48 AM
From: zonder	Respond to of 90947

The subject of discussion was "If the goal was to remove Saddam, wouldn't a sniper's bullet be more efficient & less costly to the US?". You seem to have changed the subject with this post. Should I assume you have accepted the validity of what I have said in the previous post? Afganistan doesn't sell us oil. Nobody said it did. We were talking about Iraq and Iraq only. If you remember, the only reason was terrorism. For invasion of Iraq? Not really. Iraq was weak after the long period of sanctions, did not threaten anybody in the last decade or so, and was not involved in 9/11. All Saddam had to do was allow unrestricted access by UN weapons inspectors If I recall correctly, he did allow inspectors in, and the inspectors didn't find anything. The same inspectors said they needed time to look more, but Bush et al were all revved up and ready to go, and they had already put the spin machine in motion with false stories on Prague, uranium from Africa, aluminum tubes for nukes, WMDs etc. So they went for the invasion instead.