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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JakeStraw who wrote (435918)	7/30/2003 2:37:23 PM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Do you think leaving saddam alone was the only alternative? Your question is such an obvious attempt at a bankrupt straw man argument that your credibility is now 0.

To: JakeStraw who wrote (435918)	7/30/2003 3:16:45 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Jake, try to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time and I'll answer your so complex question, ie.: >>"So you think Saddam should have been left alone... Maybe just take a wait, see and hope attitude." No, the bastard should have been hung by his balls and then shot, but not because he was an appreciable threat to the U.S., not because he had an effective nuclear program that would have been revealed in the form of a "mushroom cloud over NY" and not because diplomatic and economic measure weren't slowly eating away his ability to threaten anyone. And certainly not because he was a threat to work with Al Quaeda. He was our ALLY in the war against Islamic fundamentalists and he kept them out of power in Iraq with the same brutal methods that he used against his other enemies there. Now, if you can hold onto that thought, take the next step; who should have hung him by his balls and taken him out and shot him? That's where it gets a little dicey. Some of us think that Iraqis should have done the job with whatever help we could have afforded them short of invading Iraq, or that we should have done it covertly, or that we should have done it only with the approval of the rest of the world and in accord with international law, or that we should have waited for him to grow old and die while we kept him bottled up or that some other solution short of invading and occupying a country that hated Saddam and hates us as well. Those are the real issues. It's not simply an "all or nothing" issue. PS. Who was it that wrote a message yesterday vehemently defending the Bush protection of the state sponsor of terrorism, Saudi Arabia, by saying that we shouldn't mess there because the result might be a Muslim theocratic government that supported more terrorism than the current regime? He was right but I had to smile at that. Isn't that what we jumped into in Iraq and what we're trying to hold our finger in the dike to prevent. I guess the truth changes to fit neo-con political agendas.