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: SilentZ who wrote (163682)	3/10/2003 3:05:45 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573822

You really think he's that dangerous to us? Hitler could've taken over the world. Hell, he is as dangerous to US as Hitler was! With the weapons in existence today, I'd much sooner take my chances with Hitler than with Saddam being a threat to us. At least Hitler had an element of predictability.

To: SilentZ who wrote (163682)	3/10/2003 4:44:56 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573822

You really think he's that dangerous to us? Hitler could've taken over the world. There's no way Saddam is anywhere near that, and never will be. I just can't see it. If I didn't know better, I would think that Ray works directly for the administration and this Hitler/Saddam comparison is a smokescreen intended to keep us from seeing the true picture. Yes, paranoia is a terrible disease. <g> The fact that the objectives and methods of Hitler vs. Saddam are different is totally immaterial. It is clear that neither finds/found anything wrong with the wholesale slaughter of humans given the means and opportunity. True, but if he's not really given the opportunity... it's still bad that he's in charge... but on the grand scale of bad things, him being in power certainly isn't among the worst. What's interesting about Saddam is that unlike Hitler, he inflates the numbers of people he's kills in order to look more impressive. In fact so does Iran.........that's how the initial death toll in the Iraq/Iran war was thought to be well over 1 million. It was only after a closer look did people begin to realize that the numbers of deaths was nowhere near that figure.....in fact, less than 500k was more likely. No question Saddam is a slimeball but evil in the way a Hitler or an OBL is evil.....now way! At least I don't see it. ted

To: SilentZ who wrote (163682)	3/10/2003 6:10:41 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573822

Zo Re...You really think he's that dangerous to us? Hitler could've taken over the world. There's no way Saddam is anywhere near that, and never will be. I just can't see it. The world. Nah. France was easy. And so were the small countries. Germany never came close to Britian, and never could figure out how to live in Russia during the winters. Saddam, if the Israelis hadn't bombed the nuclear plant, could easily do more damage now than Hitler ever thought of in his wildest dreams. Back in 91 Saddam also had amassed enough chemical and biological weapons to kill everyone in the world several times over. True, but if he's not really given the opportunity... it's still bad that he's in charge... but on the grand scale of bad things, him being in power certainly isn't among the worst. If it takes 250,000 troops on the border and several thousand inspectors to control him, how much worse can it get. Not to mention the 6000 children dying every month from those controls. 1.5 million people have died according to Saddams own accounts,there are between 2 mil. and 4 mil refugees, and you say that isn't too bad. What pray tell, is your definition of bad. Surely this short war, can't be any worse than leaving Saddam in power.