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: RMF who wrote (801277)	8/14/2014 2:32:27 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576650

I don't know if Gore flatly stated he would go to war. He did say (in 2002) that "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country". But he also suggested at that time, however, that if it were not handled correctly a war in Iraq could leave us worse off, which obviously came true. But GWB believed that as well, so it isn't really a difference in their views. Gore said, ". . . no international law can prevent the US from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented [as of 9/2002] in Iraq." So, while Gore didn't support going to war at that time, he clearly indicated he believed that time could come and he further stated that existing UN resolutions were sufficient grounds for such a war. That last comment is important. Because if those grounds existed in 9/2002, why didn't they exist a year earlier or two years earlier. What had changed? 9/11? Everyone agrees that Iraq didn't participate in 9/11. So, that can't be it. The essence of it is that Gore believed Saddam had WMDs, and that they posed a threat to US interests. And one has to wonder whether he questioned Clinton's failure to act in defense of the UN resolutions on all those previous occasions. A president can't just tolerate that crap because every time you do it builds the confidence of your enemies. Had the Clinton/Gore administration done its job in the 90s, Saddam would have been history by the time Bush took office. As would bin Laden.

To: RMF who wrote (801277)	8/14/2014 1:19:34 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Recommended By Bill FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576650

Gore Tells Iraqis Saddam Hussein 'Must Be Removed' June 27, 2000\|Associated Press articles.latimes.com We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." September 23, 2002 Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table.” February 12, 2002 Remarks to the US Council on Foreign Relations We need national resolve and unity, not weakness and division when we're involved, engaged in an action against someone like Saddam Hussein, who is trying to get weapons of mass destruction and threaten his neighbors...f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people." December 16, 1998 On Larry King Live http://whosaiditiraq.blogspot.com/2005/11/al-gore.html In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster. theatlantic.com