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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (5699)	1/14/2004 12:23:28 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Saddam was no more dangerous than any of the other rulers of the Middle East, certainly not to America. This is correct. But you misunderstand the issue. The issue isn't "Was Saddam a danger to us?" (answer: No). The issue is, "Could Saddam's removal be beneficial in eliminating future terrorist threats against us?" (answer: Absolutely). Saddam was taken out because Americans hated him and clearly, there was support for doing so, and it would have the desired effect. It could have just as easily been the ruler of Syria (although, being next to Iran has some immediate benefits). The point is that taking out Saddam is one way to bring about an end to anti-Americanism.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (5699)	1/14/2004 12:28:51 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

I disagree with your post. If you even do a cursory review of the news from Libya, Iran, NK and even Palestine, you see signs of hope and progress. Don't get me wrong. I've posted that lots of the PR and tactics have been inefficient and just plain stupid. BUT - the world looks a tad better, albeit still a dangerous place. As for quagmire, most objective observers note that the level of insurgency is small. The proof will be if they are able to stick to the game plan and hand over power as scheduled. The level of casualties by historic standards is anything but a quagmire, not to belittle any casualties. In fact, the rhetoric has been consistently critical and consistently short-sighted from the time the war started. Remember the quagmire in the desert? How will they get to Baghdad? How will they cross the river in the sand? How will they get out of the mud? The people all have arms? There will be thousands or even ten's of thousands of American casualties and millions of Iraqi casualties, all in the name of oil? Remember those posts? I would guess some of yours probably fell in there somewhere. Agree?