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.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (69883)	1/19/2009 12:06:34 AM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

But invading Iran, conquering Kuwait, and also the micro invasion of Saudi, are the mark of a dangerous military adventurer. You didn't address my point that Israel bombed Iraq's reactor back in 1981. Now bombing someone's territory is an act of war, and if you know of an Iraqi retaliation for it I'd like to know what it was. A dangerous power isn't a punching bag for its rivals. The fact is that Saddam was scared of Israel and did nothing. Some "dangerous power". The danger a military power presents is judged by its ability to project power. Saddam had tanks, infantry, and a second rate air force. Iraq's sole conquest was unarmed Kuwait. Saddam only would have been trouble for the United States if he possessed a nuclear weapon and the will and ability to use it. Our own weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, insisted before the invasion that Saddam had no nuclear weapons. The Bush administration used the specter of a nuclear explosion conflated with Islamic terrorism to gin up support for invading Iraq. And while he was apparently not an Islamic radical himself he did provide support to Islamic radical terrorists. Name some. I picked up a number of books from the old Conservative Book Club after 9-11 regarding Islamic terrorism. Steve Emerson and Robert Spencer were two of the authors. One point that stood out is that although al Qaeda and similar movements drew from throughout the Muslim world, Iraq was significant by its absence. There were Saudis, Yemenis, Egyptians, Libyans, but not one Iraqi Muslim terrorist was identified as part of the gang, nor did they set up shop in Iraq. Moreover the Islamic radicals regarded Saddam as an infidel. Saddam didn't persecute Christians and other religious minorities because religion didn't much interest him. One result of removing Saddam is that the "democratic" Iraq does persecute Christians and other religious minorities. 2 - We would very likely have kicked Iraq out of Kuwait if we where not an oil importer And the evidence for that is what?