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: redfish who wrote (10290)	5/9/2004 10:37:17 AM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 20773

I don't think the Iraqis are savages, but a people with a history of being tortured and abused by their own leaders. I can't imagine anyone thinking that we should use even a small part of Saddam's torture against them. As for Iraq being a threat, I agree this may be true and I'd like to see much more by way of investigation, as opposed to just blanket statements on both sides. My opinion is that Saddam did such a good job of bluffing that he fooled the US intelligence, as well the intelligence of most of the world. The US was not alone in determining that there was a threat. He bluffed, he picked the wrong time post 9/11 to continue the bluff, and he was called on the bluff. It's a really tough area IMO. Even if everything you say is true and Saddam was not a threat to the US, does the US have an obligation to stop someone who has murdered perhaps a million Muslims, tortured, maimed with chemicals, raped, etc. Yes, I know the administration put a lot on the WMD issue and IMO was clearly foolish in doing so to the degree that it did. I know many post that the US is selective and I think that is a valid criticism. I also think the US should have done more as recently as Liberia and certainly in Rwanda when Clinton was in office.