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: Cogito who wrote (75573)	4/19/2006 12:31:59 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Re: "If the war Iraq had been the response to an attack, it wouldn't have been preemptive war, would it?" The war in Iraq was in large part in response to an attack. It is fair I believe, to say that our action in Iraq was preemptive of future attacks upon us and others. Preventative war, for all it's alleged illegality, also fits the bill here in my mind(and yes, I know you could run with that comment, I just think not far). Look at the trouble Saddam caused the world, and realize inspections did not stop his quest to obtain weapons, even in the runup to 2003. Look at the testimony and reports of his support for terrorism and yes, even reports of his support for Al Qaeda's activities. Consider all the evidence, both circumstantial and direct testimony. Can I think it all false? No. That would imply a widespread conspiracy was taking place to nail Saddam. If one considers each of the reports of Iraq's complicity as weak, then before rejecting them all outright as has been done by many on this thread, one might then ask why would a conspiracy to make a bad guy look still worse, plant such weak evidence? It wouldn't, IMHO. There are reasons why the state of the evidence is as it is. Al Qaeda is renowned for stealth, and this in large part explains the state of the evidence. Saddam's destruction of evidence explains the state of the evidence too. A conspiracy to frame Saddam doesn't adequately explain the multiple reports of Iraq's involvement with terrorism. Unconventional terrorism has amassed at our border, and Saddam was certainly genuinely a real threat. Pres. Bush said Iraq was not an "imminent threat," while others in his administration said it was. Be that as it may, I certainly do believe Saddam reigned over an unacceptable equivalent of "troops massed at the border," given that we live in an age of 911 style warfare against us. Saddam's known support of real terrorism made the question of "if" he would attack one which could not be in reasonable doubt. Bill Clinton could and would have told you this. Re: "As for Saddam always considering himself at war with the U.S. since 1991..." Actually, the statement was that Saddam said he has always considered himself at war with the U.S. That's "always," as in prior to '91 too. Think about it, and explain to me why I should doubt and reject outright the multiple reports of his complicity in terrorism against us. Re: "Nothing I say could possibly change your mind," If you lied and I believed you, it could. Yes, it is possible to change my mind. You could change my mind had you true evidence to present clearing Saddam of being the Saddam I've heard so loud and clearly. Dan B.