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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (132869)	5/13/2004 5:15:27 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I see. So you are recommending the judgment of a man who precipitated an invasion bent on his downfall from the world's preeminent military power, because he would not let the inspectors freely finish their business and certify that he had no stockpiles. Hm.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (132869)	5/13/2004 7:29:31 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<<The rest of us keep talking about capacity and his understanding that there would be massive reprisals. No matter how many times you say that he was a bad man with few moral restraints, you can't convince the pragmatists that he had the capacity to cause any significant harm to America, or that he was so blinded by ambition or hatred that he would overlook the fact that the most dangerous wmd nation in the history of mankind was (are you ready---drum roll), US. >>> Saddam seemed to be immune to massive reprisals.Paid no attention to US promises to invade and was blinded to the power of the US forces. Come and get me if you can, he seemed to be saying, with the idea he would defeat us. So apparently he thought he could cause significant damage to America, even if the pragmatics did not. If he pays no attention the US military, what is then to stop him from making whatever demands he choses on others? Sig