SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : FREE AMERICA
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: KLP who wrote (2399)4/8/2006 1:12:32 PM
From: American Spirit  Read Replies (2) of 14758
 
Kerry would have taken out Saddam without a full-scale invasion and occupation, unless he had the kind of backing from the world Bush Sr. had during the Gulf War. But first he would have continued inspections for as long as it takes, and Saddam would have been found to have no WMD. Kerry was for the real threat of force not for unilateral invasion. Big difference.

A unilateral invasion without a post-invasion plan was a bad-bad idea as we now know. Kerry woiuld never have approved it.

As for Saddam's atrocities, yes he was guilty, but many of the worst ones were with US support during the Iran-Iraq war. And Reaganites didn't utter a peep of protest when Saddam put down the Kurdish rebellion.

In fact our troops are also guilty of torturing people in Iraq, and so are the Shias and Sunnis. Plus, those "mass graves' Hannity rants about were mostly filled with the same type of Islamic fundamentalists that we consider "terrorists" now and are trying to kill ourselves.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News