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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (55837)	7/23/2004 11:27:23 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 793809

<<< I disagree that the war against Iraq was a waste of money. Iraq under Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism, although many, if not most, of the terrorists who took refuge in Iraq were not ideologically Islamist. For example, Saddam gave money to the families of homicide bombers in Israel. Then there were the Abu Nidal types.>>> No one could disagree that Saddam was a terrible human being and that the world is much better off with him stripped of power. That was the case that had to be made before we invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein is a terrible human being and we (in the United States) will not stand for him to stay in power. The question then should have been, what is the best way to get rid of him. Perhaps that would have been very difficult to see at the time (I will grant you that) but at least in hind sight, we should be able to see that going to war with Iraq the way we did was not the best way to handle the situation.