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: Alighieri who wrote (416110)	9/10/2008 2:03:54 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1588641

I simply asked the question, "Why would they think that?" I cannot remember anyone saying that Saddam was in any way responsible for 9/11. It is counterintuitive. Had Saddam been believed by most to be "responsible" in any way, why in hell would Bush have used WMD as the principal reason for attacking Iraq? Bush wouldn't have; it wouldn't have been necessary. He would have done precisely what he did in Afghanistan -- these are the people who killed 3,000 innocent Americans and we're going after them. But Bush, properly, declared war on ALL terrorists, not just AQ. What that meant is that if you were in any way supporting terrorism, which Saddam was, you are a potential target. There was no prerequisite of having involvement in 9/11. Never. As it turned out, we were already "at war" with Iraq -- but we were operating under a ceasefire agreement, the terms of which Iraq had previously violated time and again. So, this really could be viewed as a continuation of the prior war, which would have been done during the 90s had we had a competent president at the time. I know, you don't get it.