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 : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edscharp who wrote (727)	5/6/2003 12:08:01 PM
From: Ed Huang	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 22250

Edschap, I think both Bush and Saddam are different from Hitler in many respects. In fact, Bush himself is just an employee of the powerhouse, he is far from being an all mighty dictator. All he does is working by the will of the powerhouse which dominates America. But since both camps calling each other "Hitler", so people did a little comparison about the two, primary to see who was(is) more likely to threaden the other countries and the world peace like Hitler. Which has been the main concern of the international comminity. For which, I listed the basic facts in my post #725. >>The US warned Iraq time and again to cooperate with inspectors. Hussein had plenty of time to do the right thing. The US acted because a weak UN would not enforce their own resolutions.<< Your argument above is poor, I'm afraid. Especially after Bushies' bombing and killing thousands Iraqis and taking over the whole country with 200,000 troops in it and still found no WMDs that they claimed Iraq had and claimed UN inspectors did not do the right job to find them. Why didn't Saddam use the WMDs before he was overthrown? Where's WMDs? Everyone here already knew that Iraq invasion had been planned many years ago by the US special interest group. Observers already pointed out long before the Iraq war, Bush administration would go ahead and invade Iraq with or without excuse. If you are intelligently honest, you would admit it. Just because US had issued "warnings" many times doesn't make the bombing and killing and taking over a sovereign state legal without UN resolution and with most the other nations in the world(including most US traditional allies) holding strong opposition. If a stronger nation just needed to issue "warnings" and became legal to take over a weaker nation without UN resolution, then Russia, China, France, Germany, Japan etc. could do that, too. This is not good for the world unless you believe in "Might makes right" or a lawless society. >>You're wrong about the US not having allies. They had significant support in the Arab world and throughout Europe with the notable exceptions of the French, Germans & Russians.<< I did not say US not having allies. At least US had Israel from the back strongly pushing the Iraq war. Could you tell me which Arab countries support or against the US before and during the Iraq war this time? And on the other hand, shall I remind you about the facts how many nations and allies supported the US government's last Gulf war and the Afghanistan war comparing the Iraq invasion war this time and the changes of the international allies for the US since this Iraq war? Hope the facts help your argument.