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: Brumar89 who wrote (139663)	7/9/2004 11:43:19 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

Not really. I didn't have any hopes about Saddam at all- and I doubt many other people did either. To be honest with you, I thought when Saddam died, or was ousted, there would be chaos in Iraq- so I wasn't really hoping for anything to happen to him. And when I talk about the US getting rid of him, one of the things I do not want the Us blamed for is the elimination of Saddam, if Iraq fails to coalesce around any one leader. I think your assessment of the other "side" is flawed, but it's always hard to assess fairly people with whom you disagree. I simply didn't think Saddam had done anything to merit removal AT THE TIME we removed him, nothing to do with hope there- and of course, the security council agreed with me, though you have Bush and Cheney agreeing with you (albeit, with poor intelligence). If Saddam had invaded anyone else, or done something aggressive (something more than a speculation)- it would have been possible to have a repeat of the type of coalition that the elder Bush was involved in. No hope involved in that scenario either. Next time around, we should probably sit on our hands until we have a real causus belli- instead of a pretend one- it looks better, and it's better for the stability of international law. I do HOPE we do that, in future- but that's the extent of my hope.