PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH Message Board

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: PROLIFE who wrote (368251)	3/7/2003 6:21:25 PM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) of 769670

Well, for one thing, we could have prevented Saddam from invading Kuwait in the first place. The British prevented an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in the early 1960s by sending troops to prevent it. We must have had satelites trained on Saddam's troops and picked up his troop buildup along the border with Kuwait. Along with his saber-rattling, it should have been obvious that he intended to invade Kuwait. And, the U.S. didn't have destroy Iraq's infrastructure the way we did. That has caused more Iraqi deaths and suffering then were really necessary. In any case, other invasions have occurred in which the U.S. did nothing in response. China invading Tibet. Indonesia invading East Timor. And, the U.S. stood by and did nothing. In fact, we supplied the Indonesians with arms. So, the main issue wasn't agression. It really was all about oil and protecting the oil supplies in that region of the world. People even ask me if I think we should allow Saddam to control so much oil? So, yes the U.S. does have blood on it's hands when it selectively responds to agression and does nothing to prevent it in the first place.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next