Sly, I can agree that the security of the US does depend, in part, on finding BL and bringing down A.Q. So I guess you dont agree that the 2 are linked in any way, right?
It means nothing to me that BL called Saddam an infidel. He can posture all he wants, but Saddam has the weapons or access to the WMD and I can be fairly sure that if it benefits BL and A.Q. then the 2 will be united in blood to defeat the infidels. And what makes you think that finding 1 man could be easier than finding the weapons that he uses?
You dont kill a snake by spending your days looking into ALL the holes. You take away his food source, that way he will die thru starvation. Finding BL will NOT stop the AQ movement and I think you will have to agree. There will ALWAYS be fanatics that wish to do the US harm. Too many holes in the dike to plug, then what?
YOU DRAIN THE LAKE, therefore NO WATER. You take away the ability for BL and A.Q. to get access to the WMD or MONEY, then the SNAKE DIES THRU STARVATION.....
Simplistic I know, but your whistling past the graveyard here. You want to pretend the evil in the world is there because of the US. That if we would just STAND DOWN, we could be left alone. Not gonna happen. Sure our policies WILL offend others and unless you feel we are doing this on purpose, then that is the price you pay for looking out for ones own interests. There may be others that disagree. FINE, but does that make us WRONG? NO, just makes us not please everyone all the time.
As far as Bush's priorities go, unless I am way off base his priorities are partly to PROTECT the citizens of the US and our interests. Why is it so damn wrong in yours and the other ANTI WAR activists eyes that Bush has a concern about the oil as part of the overall package here? Does it not benefit the US interests to have a stable world oil situation? And in those same terms, I have yet to once read you chiding the French for putting Oil interests into policy making as part of there equation.
Its part of the decision making process on ALL fronts by all of the countries, yet you seem to believe we are the ONLY country that has to KEEP the oil problem OUT our decision making process.
I can tell there is NO way I am going to change your mind, and not trying to. Just trying to put forth my point of view as it may sometimes disagree with yours.
I am not so polyannaish to think that getting rid of Saddam will cure all the United States ills, and you cant be so sure that NOT attacking and getting ride of him and finding BL and A.Q. will rid us of all terrorist acts in the future. This is what scares me so much. The fact that world opinion, being PC and letting other countries policies try to influence us.
It is in France's best interest to keep Saddam for the alliance's they via the oil. Is that wrong in terms of France? If your answer is NO, then the same principle can be applied to the US that in OUR interests, its better that Saddam is out of power. Same dance, different steps.
In my opinion, we dont wish to control IRAQ, N.K., France, Germany, yada yada. All I think we wish to do is to make sure WE, the US, are not attacked with weapons that the UN has MANDATED Saddam cant have.
OK, enough of that. Let me ask a quick and simple YES/NO question. Do you think as of TODAY, Saddam has gotten ride of all his WMD ? That he has NONE what so ever?
If your answer is he has NONE, thats your opinion and while I disagree, your entitled. If you believe he still has them, but its a HIDE AND SEEK game via the inspectors, then you disagree on the principle of Resolution 1441. Instead of making Saddam responsible for disclosure, the UN is responsible for finding them, correct?
M
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
