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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (207341)	10/18/2004 4:48:25 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575498

>> and the US has suffered for it. I don't know of a war where there wasn't some suffering on both sides. However, it has clearly worked out great for the United States. We now have a genuine war on terror happening somewhere besides HERE. And when we defeat them in Iraq, the world is a safer place. It is too bad Americans and innocent Iraqis had to lose their lives in this struggle. But the end result is a safer America.

To: Elroy who wrote (207341)	10/18/2004 4:52:03 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575498

It was a massive screw up on the part of the Security Council. There is no international law against being a despotic dictator. The U.N. was on the responsible course to determine if there was a reason for international action against Saddam. Weapons, Crimes, or aggression could all have been reasons. Bush invaded without determining a reason, and consequently he had no yardstick with which to measure success. He is trying to claim that removal of Saddam alone is a success, but nobody's buying it. TP