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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (140843)	12/7/2001 1:01:28 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586067

I wonder if he will get Saddam this time. This notion that Saddam should have been taken out last time is one put forth by unthinking people (many of whom are Republicans, I might add). It is really easy to Monday Morning Quarterback the situation; however, Bush I was operating under a mandate that would not have tolerated a continuance of the war on to Baghdad. I agree with your conclusion, but like you said a lot of the complaints came from Reps. and were his worst detractors re this issue. Admit it -- you'd have been the first in line to complain had Bush done what you're suggesting. Not at all... what I would have complained about was our reasoning for going over there in the first place; however, once there...do the job completely, not half ass.....except I do understand why Bush backed off from taking out Saddam. He did precisely what he should have done and I believe history will view the Gulf War as precisely what it was -- a HUGE defeat of a very strong military by the United States, with minimal loss of life ("wait til those body bags start coming home ... remember that?"). I think you exaggerate the military might of Saddam as have others who vigorously supported that military campaign....I have heard observations from more neutral military experts, however, that say we fought a second rate army from a third world country. Having said that, why this issue is so important to you and others is beyond me. It is, to me, absurd, that a liberal would question what Bush I did in Iraq. Bush goes in and roundly defeats Saddam; then Clinton lays down while Saddam ejects the weapons inspectors. No Bush (1 or 2) would have allowed this to happen -- it was a horrible foreign policy blunder that only a White House packed with rank amateurs could have made. This is a sad commentary.....you are so willing to absolve Bush Sr from blame for not taking out Saddam due to public opinion but then turn around, and imply that, somehow, public opinion had changed under Clinton and he could have declared war on Saddam and taken him out with ease. Clinton no more had a mandate to take out Saddam than Bush did. For Christ's sake, if you must be partisan, at least be consistent with your arguments. Today, we have have a White House that oozes competence, integrity, experience, and committment. Man, what a difference a year makes! And we are right back where we started...the current White House has proven that they are good at making war against a third world enemy period. I am glad they capable of performing but am not nearly as impressed as you are with the feat.