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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend....
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: RMF who wrote (22988)9/16/2006 1:31:56 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) of 35834
 
We had little understanding of how far along Saddam's nuclear program was. Saddam had the means to end our "control" over him (the no-fly zones & int'l sanctions) by simply cooperating with UN arms inspectors during the 12 years between the two wars. We don't know why he didn't do that (I invite you to explain that if you disagree).

What we did understand about Saddam was that he was undeterrable, utterly ruthless and reckless.

Undeterrable in that he refused to pull out of Kuwait when confronted by an int'l coalition supported by the entire world that he couldn't defeat.

Ruthless in that he'd used WMD's on civilians already, including citizens of his own country.

Reckless in that as his troops were being driven from Kuwait he had all of Kuwait's oil wells blown up out of spite. Also out of spite he sent assassins to try to kill ex-Pres. Bush.

----------------------------
As for being pro-Saddam, you said Iraq and the world was better off with Saddam in power. That's pro-Saddam to me.

Re. NK, I don't believe for a minute NK or the world is better off with Kim Jong Il in power.

I don't think we should invade NK now only because it borders China (a more mature nuclear power) and we've already had one war with China over NK.
-----------------------------
Filling Afghanistan with troops is how the Russians handled the country. It seems to me we have been largely successful in Afghanistan - there are Taliban elements but they aren't anywhere near powerful enough to take over. And al Qaida isn't operating in Afghanistan any longer.

AQ isn't operating openly anywhere now, but are in hiding in various parts of Pakistan.

Re. Clinton's failure to get OBL and his compatriots - at the time, OBL was operating openly in Afghanistan - they had training camps with thousands of recruits from around the world in the country. A different situation from today.
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