Politics for Pros- moderated 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 : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (176406)	8/13/2006 11:53:14 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) of 793597

Had Saddam actually had the WMD capability and had we not removed him when we did, would we be worse off than we are now? Maybe, but not necessarily. The answer to that is what Cheney calls "The one percent solution." If there was a one percent chance that Saddam could come up with a Nuke, he had to be taken out. The consequences were too dire not to be dealt with. With all the Intel saying "yes," we went. Those like you and Euterpe can post to you are blue in the face, but you can't get around the facts as they were. Unless you are part of the "Bush lied" tinfoil hat crowd. That group just ignores the results of the Senate investigations. That is the quandary we face now in Iran. Can we take even a one percent chance of letting religious fanatics get the bomb? When they consistantly tell us we are the "Great Satan" and should be done away with? As nutty as Kim Song ll is, he at least wants to live.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next