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 (161420)	2/17/2003 11:36:06 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574485

Liberalism did not create Saddam. I agree. However, Saddam was well contained when responsibility was handed to the liberals. What happened? After 6 short years, Saddam denied access to inspectors, effectively eliminating the containment. What did the liberal do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. No conservative president would have tolerated it; we would have either had the containment back in place at once, or we would have removed Saddam. Because the liberal president was unable, literally, to take a pee without consulting polls, he could NEVER have brought himself to tackle this problem the way Bush has. Just no stomach for it. However, conservatism under R. Reagan aided and abetted Saddam for its own purposes and made him what he was in 1991. This argument is utter crap. The reality is that those items which WERE made available to Saddam were done so for humanitarian purposes. The fact that Saddam misappropriated them is unfortunate, but frankly, anyone we give this kind of help to could do the same thing. The bigger picture is that liberalism is a failure in every respect. Mona Charen's new book, "Useful Idiots", details the massive failure of liberalism since WWII. I recommend you read it. Perhaps you'll be enlightened.