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: michael97123 who wrote (149512)	10/28/2004 9:01:44 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

<Saddam was a one-man horror show. He deserved to be removed.> If the war on terror is your top concern, removing Saddam aided the Jihadists -- that is a fact. Was it due to bungling of the invasion/occupation? The decisions made by Rumsfeld displayed a profound failure of his leadership abilities -- please note that he has not been fired. But you raise the more basic issue -- you, in effect, say that if Rumsfeld had performed his job competently, then removing Saddam would have been a smart move. The answer to this implied question is a resounding "no". It would not have been a smart move. You do not seem to grasp this elemental fact. Removing him at this point in time AND unilaterally constitute profound mistakes in the war on terror.