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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (227129)	3/30/2005 1:49:23 PM
From: Alighieri	Respond to of 1571679

Not really. We got the support from the world, but we sure didn't wait to go through the formalities. And even if we didn't get the support, we would have gone in because most Americans supported it. These guys did it....we warned for a good three months...then we bombed. Hardly any boots on the ground. Iraq was the crook with the fake gun (no gun) who WAS willing to let the (no) gun be inspected. Al

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (227129)	3/30/2005 1:57:26 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571679

re: No need to answer; I've made my point. The whole world was pretty sure Saddam had the WMD in the first place. Saddam was no different than the crook wielding a fake weapon. Of course, only after we know do we get the second-guessers coming in and crying about "police brutality." Faulty analogy. SH wasn't threatening anyone. In your analogy, the police officer went into somebody's house and shot him to death because he believed he might have a gun hidden somewhere... then the police officer couldn't find it. John

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (227129)	3/30/2005 3:44:17 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1571679

Al, You are revising history. Not really. We got the support from the world, but we sure didn't wait to go through the formalities. And even if we didn't get the support, we would have gone in because most Americans supported it. That would have been self defense. What's your point here? Probably not much of a point, but consider the example of the police officer who opened fire on an armed suspect he hated in the first place. Self-defense, or a perfect excuse to get in a "clean shoot"? No need to answer; I've made my point. The whole world was pretty sure Saddam had the WMD in the first place. Saddam was no different than the crook wielding a fake weapon. Of course, only after we know do we get the second-guessers coming in and crying about "police brutality." Talk about revising history. I am so glad I lived it at the same time you did; otherwise, I would be suckered into an illusion. In fact, the only way a majority of Americans wanted to go into Iraq was under the banner of UN. They did not want us going in alone or with a coalition of the willing. As for the world, they supported our actions in Afghanistan but were diametrically opposed to the invasion of Iraq. ted

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (227129)	3/30/2005 4:46:22 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1571679

The whole world was pretty sure Saddam had the WMD in the first place. Saddam was no different than the crook wielding a fake weapon. Of course, only after we know do we get the second-guessers coming in and crying about "police brutality." You received responses from three people who wish to rewrite history to pretend that Saddam having WMDs, training and supporting terrorists, and brutalizing his own citizens was not a problem. Good luck trying to convince them of anything that does not support the conclusion that President Bush did something wrong. It is very interesting that on President Bush's watch democracy is breaking out all over. Liberals conclude that it was a coincidence that freedoms decreased and terrorism increased during Clinton's terms. They will also claim that it is a coincidence that freedom and democracy are breaking out all over on President Bush's Presidency.