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 (149304)	8/8/2002 5:26:23 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579857

There was never any question about what would signify the end of the war. To have changed the terms of the war after roundly defeating his military would have been clearly inappropriate and you and every liberal on earth would have raised hell had he exceeded his UN authority. You may well be in the position to speak for conservatives but you don't speak for liberals and this was one liberal who expected Hussein to be taken out. He attacked a neighboring country with the intent of snagging their oil......why would I argue with his disposable? Now, its years later, and you want to blame Clinton for not taking him out because Saddam didn't cooperate with the weapons' inspectors. Let me weigh this out........attacking another country with the intent to rape and maim vs saying "no" to weapons' inspector....hhhmmmmmmm! Yup, you're right.......saying "no" was a far more vicious transgression. Clinton was a wuss for not disposing of Saddam. What a good and honorable man Bush Sr. was to refrain. Thank you for showing me the light.........NOT!!!