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: GST who wrote (110936)	8/11/2003 4:05:36 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<Iraq was more stable -- that is not proSaddam, that is simple fact.I >>> The stability consisted of maintaining an infant death rate that was 6,500 more per month than normally expected, to build an average of 5 new Palaces per year by mortgaging the Iraq oil fields for years to come, and to flaunt everyone of 14 new Resolutions of the UN where compliance was required to avoid re-starting the 1991 War. And continuing to populate those unmarked mass gravesites Sig @betterunstable.com

To: GST who wrote (110936)	8/11/2003 8:33:21 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, you said Saddam brought stability to the region and you favor stability, so why would it be incorrect to say that your view is objectively or practically pro-Saddam? That's what I asked in my previous post and it seems your answer is simply that it just isn't. You state that your view is "fact" but give no reason or argument supporting it. Everything the west does in the ME can potentially be used for propaganda purposes by AQ, including both the overthrow of Saddam and the previous 12 years of sanctions. Simply stating your views are "fact" and "truth" isn't an argument. If you have arguments supporting your positions you should make them.