Foreign Affairs Discussion Group 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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (175914)	11/27/2005 2:55:20 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) of 281500

No. Iraq invaded another country which they wouldn't have had Bush 41 bothered to preempt it. It also wouldn't have been an issue if the US hadn't consistently pushed to have Iraq be 'the bulwark' against Iran. All in all, it's a mess of a foreign policy which Dumbya only exacerbates by toppling governments and leaving power vacuums. The final analysis is, we get away from reliance on fossil fuels and stop meddling in the affairs of the region. Remember when Bush got up in front of the world in his SOTU address and said: we must topple Saddam because we have to defend the UN and its resolution? Do you? Right-o....because he didn't. Bush got up in front of the world and said Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa meaning that he was an IMMINENT THREAT TO THE US OF A. If you're going to defend Bush's policy in Iraq then defend BUSH'S POLICY not the fabrication of it 3 years down the road. Oh yeah, where in the UN resolution did it say to topple Saddam and create 'democracy' in Iraq at the cost of $300 billion and tens of thousands of lives? Where?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next