SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Don Hurst who wrote (72818)2/24/2005 12:22:28 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 89467
 
Implying that the US is responsible for gassing the Kurds because we sold them commonly available chemicals that they turn in to nerve gas, is a little like holding a gas station responsible because it sold gasoline that was used by an arsonist to start a deadly fire.

But even if we directly sold Saddam nerve gas, trained his soldiers how to use it, and told Saddam "go gas the Kurds". The whole issue still wouldn't be that relevant to the discussion that prompted my comments.

. How would you like to be ruled by a Sistani/Bush?

I'd rather be ruled by Sistani than Saddam. I'd much rather have my government be an elected government that Sistani influences than be ruled by either Sistani or Saddam. I'd much rather have Bush as a national leader than the current or former Iraqi governments.

Getting back to J. Chris Parson's original post that started this, the situation with having Bush has an elected leader with a constitutionally limited term and far less then total power in the country is much different than being under a brutal unelected dictator who has ruled for 30 years. Even if Bush had the character, habits, and leadership style of Saddam (and the difference is enormous), the institutional differences between the US and Iraq under Saddam would mean there would be no need for any foreign power to "liberate" us from Bush. J Chris' "inversion" of the situation is meaningless.

Tim