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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (714820)	11/23/2005 11:16:26 PM
From: Geoff Altman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

UN, thumbing its nose to other nations such as France and Germany with whom we have historically had good relations etc. Chinu, to make a long story very short. Take a look at this map and you tell me if there was any strategic value in invading Iraq? pbs.org I'd ask you to read this post I did a few weeks ago to understand a bit more about the climate in the US after 9/11 and why invading Iraq was our best option, if you read the replies it will save alot of time: Message 21901699 There were many reasons for our falling out with France and Germany one of the main ones was that even though Saddam had thumbed his nose at the UN Weapons inspectors and violated the UNs own resolutions the UN, with Germany and Frances help refused to take any actions against Saddam.....To say the least this pissed the US off: see 1154: casi.org.uk There was some suspicion at the time that the reason France and Germany were against more actions had more to do with certain lucrative business contracts that they'd received after Desert Storm than for any benevolent reasons. Peter Dierks gave a good description of the climate of the UN. The "coalition of the bribed and coerced" he speaks of I believe are France and Germany mainly: Message 21891416

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (714820)	11/23/2005 11:41:34 PM
From: Geoff Altman	Respond to of 769667

But sure go after Osama, the bigger fish instead of the smaller one, Saddam. I touched on this in my previous posts but to make it clearer. Saddam needed to go anyway, we'd had it up to our necks in UN resolutions with him. Osama wasn't likely to stay anywhere in one place so it was important to have a strategic base of operations in order to either hunt him down or at least drive him somewhere where he'd have the greatest difficulty managing Al Qaeda. That guy Ayman Al Zawahiri is a medical doctor. He could have been so useful to the poor folks in Egypt, his fellow Muslim brothers and sisters. Instead he choose to be counter productive. What do you do to such folks. Just hunt them out and kill them. There's not many cases I can think of off hand where terrorist have been reformed in any way. Only one comes to mind, Menachem Begin <g>: en.wikipedia.org Originally it was probably hatred of Israel that drove Zawahiri towards terrorism. If you scroll down this link it's informative, also while you're there click on the link to Sayyib Qutb. Reading his bio is key to understanding my belief that higher educations in the US for Syrians etc might not have the effects that you spoke of in previous posts: en.wikipedia.org