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: Srexley who wrote (522974)	1/12/2004 4:13:25 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

If the international community and the U.N. were a bit more in agreement about Saddam, the war could have been avoided. But rather surprisingly, there are a lot of countries that supported him. We shouldn't let them set U.S. policy imo. The UN was in agreement...the US was the dissenter. We couldn't even get a tiny African nation to vote in our favor on the final Iraqi resolution. The imminence of the danger was the key administration's reason for the urgency to proceed with the war. The absence of imminence drove the UN to proceed with caution. Which degree of imminence did we find in Iraq post occupation? For the most part, Castro has not been as dangerous as Saddam. What danger did Saddam pose to the US? Too bad so many in the world would rather appease than make a stand. What we did to Saddam post 1991 could hardly be called appeasment. His country was broken, he had no weapons, and he controlled less than 60% of his country. Al