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: g_w_north who wrote (149836)	8/16/2002 2:33:16 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570342

If America didn't have a mandate to invade Iraq after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, launching missiles at Israel, gassing their own citizens etc..., then on what moral high ground do they stand today I find no connection between the reason for the Gulf War and the reasoning behind our purported plans to attack today. In the Gulf War, we had not been concerned about his development of WMD! We were going for one purpose only, which was to liberate Kuwait. Today, the situation is totally different. Again, it is easy 10 years hence to criticize what was done, but 10 years ago we were faced with different circumstances and a different set of options. The decision made at that time was correct given the information we had at that time. Today, we all wish we had gone to Baghdad; 10 years ago everything was different. It is bizarre to me that Bush 41 is taking criticism, even from conservatives, about this. While the cowboy mentality would have had us go to Baghdad, Bush 41 used appropriate restraint, said, "we've accomplished our mandate", and did what he should have.

To: g_w_north who wrote (149836)	8/16/2002 2:33:22 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1570342

g_w_north, <They should have gone to Baghdad 10 years ago when they have been UN backing and a solid coalition.> Removing Saddam from power would have been overstepping the clear goals laid out by the coalition. That would have sparked just as much outrage as that over Dubya's willingness to correct his father's so-called "mistake." I agreed with the decision of Bush Sr. at the time. It's not a case of moral authority (or the lack thereof); it was a case of sticking to clear goals and going no further. That's usually the best decision, but as we all know, sometimes the "best" decision isn't the right one. Right now, the "best" decision is to heed international opposition to the invasion of Iraq. But I'm afraid that this won't be the right decision to make. But how can we be sure, except in hindsight? Tenchusatsu