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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (32894)	7/1/2004 3:07:33 AM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

<<All the US Presidents before had a strategic interest in keeping Saddam in power and contain his influence>> <<This President, whom we all knew had the stupidest notions about foreign policy decided to go and take him out.>> Why was Bush 1 criticized so much by democrats for not going all the way to Bagdad shortly after 9/11 when we started talking about another Iraq invasion. Apparently the democrats in congress didn't think leaving Saddam in power was all that great a move. Also, why did Kerry, H. Clinton and many other prominent democrats give Bush authorization to invade. They're all on tape (even Bill Clinton) saying he had WMDS as are the Russians, French and several other countries. If they were politicizing then or now it's VERY wrong of them when the situation is as tenuous as it is....wouldn't you agree? EDIT I'd also add that these people were stating Iraq had WMD's well before Bush's state of the Union address where he really pounded that issue. You can't tell me that the democrats including H Clinton, J Kerry, B Clinton and leaders like Putin and Chirac were all basing their opinion of the WMD's on Bush's opinion and thus duped.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (32894)	7/1/2004 12:40:25 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

You actually think it was in our interest to leave Saddam in power? You're actually arguing the "geopolitical balance" requires the cruel tyrannical Saddam ruling Iraq? Amazing. All the US Presidents before had a strategic interest in keeping Saddam in power....This President....decided to go and take him out. Now the balance of power has tilted.. His stupid actions have upset the geopolitical balance. Saddam has been a danger to US interests in the Gulf ever since he came into power. He invaded three neighboring countries, ran down his own country's oil industry, provided safe haven to terrorists (including a number who have murdered Americans, like the '93 WTC explosive maker)...I don't think any more argument on this point is necessary. It's a good thing that Saddam is gone - for both Iraq and the US.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (32894)	7/1/2004 12:51:55 PM
From: Emile Vidrine	Respond to of 81568

Saddam was a horrible warmonger, liar and deceiver He is almost as good at it than Bush . What makes Bush a better warmonger is the fact that he has a larger army and more money than Saddam to pursue his warmongering. What makes Bush a better liar and deceiver, is the fact that he has the Jewish media and the Jewish-American lobby to help him disseminate his lies and deceptions.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (32894)	7/1/2004 12:57:16 PM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

"Now the balance of power has tilted and lurking out there is Iran and its nuclear potential" You forget Israel lurking out there with its biological, nuclear and chemical potential. Israel is the only Middle Eastern nation that possesses illegal nuclear weapons. It is Israel that threatens the Arabs nations and forces an nuclear arms race in the Middle East. If Israel had not develped illegal nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, there would probably be no WMD arms race in the Middle East.