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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14574)	11/2/2003 1:52:16 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793717

No, after the war we could see the number of mass graves. We knew all about that before the war. It wasn't stressed, because the issue of imminent threat was thought more compelling. It was only when it became clear that the threat was less than what had been portrayed that Saddam's treatment of his people became an issue. Several of our allies are filling mass graves even as we speak. We don't invade them, or even put significant pressure on them to stop. It seems that these things only matter when it is convenient to invoke them in support of decisions already reached on other grounds. If America had been forced to let sanctions lift, as France and Russia wanted, and America had withdrawn in shame, while Saddam pounded his chest (and the Kurds and Shia) and was hailed by the whole Arab world as the Great Defier and Conqueror of America!, what effect do you honestly think this would have had on the politics of the Gulf? Probably a very unpleasant effect, but since I never proposed such a course of action, or anything remotely akin to it, I fail to see why I should defend it. That's one of the shakier straw men I've seen around these parts.