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: Michael Watkins who wrote (153328)	12/4/2004 12:17:28 PM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

In time, its far more likely that an aging Saddam / Iraq would have gone the way of Ghaddafi and given up LOL, MW... Ghaddafi didn't give up anything until the day Saddam Hussein was behind bars. And what about the "aging Saddam's" youthful sons - both of them power hungry fellows, and at least one of them a sick sadist? Imo, MW, you are a sincere person, but you ought to take a step back and examine things from a different perspective. It's silly to argue that SH and his clan wouldn't do anything in order to increase their power and to become major world players.

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (153328)	12/4/2004 12:32:05 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Incorrect, again. Any SANE person would know that, in a post 9/11 environment, sanctions would never be lifted from Iraq until Saddam and his regime were history, however long that took. In a sane world, you would be right, sanctions would stay. But it's not a sane world. It was up to the UN Security Council to keep up sanctions. China, Russia and France are permanent members, and Saddam was giving them BILLIONS of reasons to lift sanctions, and they were working diligently on his behalf. And you of the left were working with them! Have you forgotten the cries to lift the sanctions, they had killed 500,000 Iraqi children? I have not. Already the sanctions were hollowed out and ineffective; soon they would have become even less than that. Remeber, the UN inspections had stopped in 1998; nobody knew what Saddam was doing. To sit here and claim "he didn't do this and the UN stopped him from that", when the renewed UN inspections only came with an army on his door step, and the knowlege only came with the Coalition invasion, is to claim the benefits of the policies you opposed to argue against those policies! If we hadn't invaded you too would think that Saddam had WMDs and maybe nukes. To think that Saddam's intentions could be trusted, with his record, or that Saddam wouldn't have been succeeded by one of his equally murderous sons, is just substituting hope for a plan of action. The most likely chance was, you would have thought things were fine for a few years, then woken up one day to find sanctions gone and a nuclear Iraq. Yes, and I do mean post 9/11. That wasn't a chance that George Bush was willing to take.