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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (74977)	3/29/2006 3:15:02 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

"We know" huh? Who knows? You and your rightwing conspiracy theory website? That claim is totally baseless. There's no credible evidence anywhere that Saddam was actively seeking to do anything with Al Qaida. If you knew more about the politics of Islamic extremism you'd know that. Saddam was more likely on Al Qaida's hit list. More proof of this is the fact that the few Islamic terrorists in Iraq are being killed by the Sunni insurgents. Now there is some evidence of that.

To: Dan B. who wrote (74977)	3/29/2006 6:44:12 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

>>You can squak all you want about conditions in Iraq. You can ignore all you want the good work we attempt to do in Iraq and the Iraqis who recognize and wildly appreciate it (they tend to get hit by terrorists, sadly). You can promote solutions which sound just like GWB as you like. But you can't change the fact that a BIG war started on 911, and Iraq was a smart place to begin to settle the fight.<< Dan - The policy of preemptive war is immoral and dangerous, in my opinion. 9/11 didn't change that. It just isn't OK to attack another country because they "may" attack you at some unspecified time in the future. It's like putting people in jail because they may commit crimes. Furthermore, proponents of this policy seem to think that it applies only to the U.S. Why should we be the only country that gets to attack preemptively? Why shouldn't that policy be applied by other nations as well? North Korea has reason to think we may do them harm. And they know we have WMDs, too. So following the policy of the Bush administration, they should just launch a nuclear missile at Seattle. There is some history to guide us. There is another country that has tried this strategy before. Israel. How's it working out for them? They've had a couple of decades. They should have eliminated all the terrorists who are bent on their destruction by now. But no, that's not what's happening. Instead, the Palestinians are handing control of their so-called government to Hamas. If attacking a country that may intend to do your country harm is OK, then Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was completely justified. The U.S. was making some pretty aggressive moves with respect to Japan in the months before that attack. I don't have time to go on here, but I will reiterate that preemptive wars are immoral and dangerous. Furthermore, they don't have the desired result. This policy will inevitably make us less secure, not more. - Allen