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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (51450)	7/2/2005 5:34:57 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 173976

Don't be silly. Kerry would have waited a year longer than Bush before invading Iraq and by then he would have either taken out Saddam with a surgical move or executed a well-prepared regime change invasion with the maximum amount of allies, including moderate Arab states who would now be the occupiers, not us. There is a huge difference between what Kerry wanted to and would have done, and what Bush did. No comparison. Once Bush invaded, the question was how to best achieve objections and get out of there. Kerry's plan again was to maximize international participation. Bush's plan was just the opposite, hog all the oil for Exxon, BP and Halliburton and unilaterally occupy the country. BTW: Saddam had a huge trained army. Why does Bush needs years to train an Iraqi defense force? Military service was mandatory in Saddam's Iraq. Just amazing failure and incompetence. But dont go confusing that with saying nothing should have been done about Saddam. He was about the #5 biggest menace to us in the world. Bush's problem is he largely ignored the first top four.