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: tejek who wrote (149915)	8/18/2002 9:22:20 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570073

Why didn't Bush Sr. take Saddam out when he had the chance? Enough, already. This masquerade isn't fooling ANYONE. Had you had any awareness at the time of the Gulf War (and as you said, you didn't have) you would have been screaming about Bush's warmongering had he decided to go against the international community and go to Baghdad. I'd bet you can't name a single prominent liberal that supported "going to Baghdad". These remarks are just hollow liberal hypocrisy.

To: tejek who wrote (149915)	8/19/2002 10:44:18 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570073

The logic of taking Saddam out now? Well really the logic applies better maybe years ago when it was obvious that Saddam would not let the inspectors do their job or then a bit later when he actually kicked them out. However since nothing was done then we are left to do something about it now. Note the fact that I see the logic behind it and the justification for it does not mean that I am 100% behind it. You could say I have reservations about it, I just don't share your very negative opinion of it. Pakistan, hardly a benign nation, has nuclear devices......do we take out the henchman who runs that country? How about Ukraine? I believe they have missiles and nuclear devices........their leader is a dictator and is said to be crazy. Do we take him out? Neither leader has shown himself to be as bad as Saddam, particularly as aggressive against other nations. Also they both already have nukes so there is no benefit to be gained by attacking them to prevent the countries for acquiring nukes. Finally we didn't fight recent wars against them, and they didn't violate any agreement put in place to end a war with us. Please explain the logic of taking Saddam out now, and not the rest of them? Why now, and not ten years ago? I've already explained the logic, at least twice. We tried to control his WMD programs without invading Iraq but it didn't work. Tim