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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (104885)	7/12/2003 10:49:15 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sanctions were to "protect" his neighbors- and if he just sat there, who cares about the rest of it? I assumed sanctions had a point, rather than just being punitive. Obviously the UN inspectors were better than even they knew they were- based on what has been found in Iraq- even they didn't know how disarmed Saddam was. Now, while "everyone" may have thought he had more weapons than he actually had, only the US pushed and pushed for war (imminent threat, to us, blah blah blah). SO, imo sanctions DID work, whether you agree or not. Obviously you wanted something different from sanctions. But imo, having Iraq just lie there, flopping on its belly, even if Saddam wouldn't yell uncle, was good enough- and mere stubbornness did not rise to the level of a pretext for war (for me), I like events that one can point to- to say this is why we went to war. Obviously our administration feels that way too- which is why we had made up events- like the Niger uranium. There are plenty of people who agree with me, mine is hardly a fringe position, and plenty who agree with you. It probably comes down to how excited you can get about war, and how in to rules you are. Me, I hate war, and I don't ever expect people to exactly follow rules, people being what they are.