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 (159289)	1/30/2003 4:41:03 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584048

Why, then, didn't Bush Sr. take him outwhen he had the chance and no bs.....he definitely had the chance? 1. We had made the commitment, in order to build the strongest possible coalition, to abide by the UN mandate. The argument that we should have "taken saddam out" is among the least informed on the subject. So then, you don't think Bush Jr. will blow off the current committment if the UN does not go along with what he wants? You think he will honor a Sec. Council decision not to attack Iraq? Hurry with your answer.......inquiring minds want to know. 2. We had not tried containment. 11 years ago, it was totally logical to attempt to contain Saddam. I doubt ANYONE could have known that Clinton would mismanage the situation so badly (even though I knew Clinton was an incompetent before he was elected, I certainly didn't know HOW BAD he would be). This is an excellent example of how strong leadership saves lives. Clinton's mismanagement of the Iraqi situation, ultimately, may cost American and Iraqi lives. Had he not bungled this so badly, containment might still be a viable option, even today. This is utter and complete nonsense......the situation in Iraq is no different then it was 11 years ago. Saddam is no further advanced on nukes then he was 11 years ago. Not only does the current administration say containment doesn't work, they claim the only thing that will work is taking Saddam out. Its funny how you don't see how difficult it is to defend this administration's policies. They want Saddam gone because they want Saddam gone. Its as simple as that. And if Clinton was a weak president, so then was Bush Sr. and as much as you love to adjust your criteria for what's weak and what's strong to fit whatever argument you're into .......it only stands up to the light of day so long as you keep that criteria firmly locked in your brain. Its difficult to argue this point with you because you only see what you want to see ROTFLMAO. Laugh but the tell of your idiocy and subsequent loss of creditability is when I gave an example of Clinton and Bush Jr. doing exactly the same thing, appointing minorities and women into positions of power, and treating both actions equally with the same disinterest, and your response......you do remember your response, don't you?......accusing me of favoring Bush over Clinton. You are so political, you don't have a clue what its like to be non partisan. Obsession is an ugly psychosis. ted