Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Brezin who wrote (972)	9/23/2001 11:36:14 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

I understand the thinking was if Hussein was taken out, his replacements could be worse. Now we are seriously discussing whether Hussein financed the WTC/Pentagon attacks. And his replacements would have....? Surrendered to or allied with Iran? Complied with the surrender terms/inspection teams so the economic sanctions would be lifted, and spared another 1.5m lives? As yet, I have not been told who would be worse or how that could possibly be. I'm not saying "The US is bad in its aims." I'm saying that, especially as the picture that has emerged has not been pretty, the US has done too little to paint another picture, other than to say "Hussein bad. Tarzan good." Surely we have mastered propaganda101 better than that, haven't we?