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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (69728)	4/11/2003 6:03:57 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

> What was not preordained was that the US would be welcome as liberators and not as invaders. This is still not so clear to me. I am sure the Iraqis are happy to be rid of Saddam. I am not so sure that they think of us as liberators. It is too early to tell. > the question, IMO, is whether the world and the Iraqis will be better off with Saddam disposed than his ruling. That is not the question at all. Even if you want to make it an issue about Saddam, the proper formulation of this question should be are the Iraqis better off with US removing Saddam or would they have been better off with an internal solution of their own. Again, this is the kind of question that will take time to answer and even then we may not know the answer for sure. So it comes down to be more of an ideological one than a practical one. > Soon we'll see if Iraq had WMD and contacts with terrorists. So far I have seen no smoking gun. One could argue, just how much of a threat Iraq really was if none of the disasters really happened during the war. > given Saddam's history of crimes against humanity, which are becoming ever more apparent, the world should have taken action and not left it to the US alone. At what point do you draw the line about not interfering in other countries and letting them evolve? In a twisted way, I think US was the only country which actually should have gone in to get rid of Saddam and not the rest of the world. It was CIA that helped Baath party to power. It was US that kept Saddam alive and kicking during its war with Iran. It was US that encouraged other Arab countries to finance Saddam when he was an ally. So ultimately, you could argue it should also be US that removes Saddam. BTW, have you seen this www1.iraqwar.ru ST

To: Fred Levine who wrote (69728)	4/14/2003 4:44:53 AM
From: zonder	Respond to of 70976

Fred - Once again - Can you try to reply to the post you are responding to? I have no idea to what you are replying here. What was not preordained was that the US would be welcome as liberators and not as invaders. And they WERE welcomed as liberators, in your opinion? I am not the psychologist here, but I do believe this is called 'selective perception'. Soon we'll see if Iraq had WMD and contacts with terrorists. And that doesn't bother you one bit that we have not yet seen any evidence to their existence? That there was no proof to begin with and that forgeries and outright lies were exposed one after the other? I would argue that this war was a reactive war--to 9/11 Please explain what you feel is the connection between 9/11 and Iraq.