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: PROLIFE who wrote (498544)	11/25/2003 4:57:01 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

No you are wrong. Clinton wasn't doing anything in Iraq, except maintaining the status quo from the the end of the Gulf War as it was inherited from Bush I. This was not the right policy. You infer that if I don't support Bush II that I somehow default to supporting what Clinton did. You are daft. Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We had the inspectors back in there. This was a positive step in the right direction. With the military build up, Saddams bluff was called. He let the inspectors back in, and they were allowed to do their job. As it turns out there were no WMD anyway. The inspectors would have been able to verify this. Then with additional pressure on Saddam on the human rights front, more progress would have been possible. All of this in concert with our allies. You talk about 11 years, but really nothing was done in those 11 years except to have turned our heads away from Iraq and let the sanctions continue, and the no fly zones continue. This was not the best policy for Iraq. This BS about the 11 years is a red herring, and has no bearing on how we should have proceeded today. The military option is one that should not be taken because you want to, it should only be taken because you have to. At the time Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, we still had many options on the table. Personally, It appears to me that the administration knew there was a good chance that Saddam did not have WMD. And that was the reason for choosing military invasion. Because you already know there is little or no chance of retaliation with WMD. The initial combat phase against the Iraqi army lasted two weeks, and no WMD used or found. Now we are bogged down in a guerilla war. The reason that we do not attack N. Korea, is because of the fact they do have WMD and a large conventional force as well. We don't go to war just because there is imminent danger of WMD being used on us. That is usually the reason not to go to war. For some reason it's ok to cavort with Saddam, as long as he's doing your bidding in Iran, as long as murder is the objective. But for some reason you would not allow working with Saddam for the purpose of peace. To have a weapons inspection team. To start a human rights team. To put the pressure on Saddam. All the time holding the stick but encouraging with the carrot. Eventually you hammer Saddam into a position of allowing free elections. This can be done while you have him in his own vice. But now we cannot work on Saddam, because he's out of the vice. Now every time we hammer him he scoots away from the blow. Orca