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: Elroy who wrote (246348)	8/17/2005 9:36:54 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584008

None of the above answers the question I posed - will Iraq be better or worse than 20 more years of Saddam followed by 20 years of Uday? If it becomes better than that, then it was a worthwhile effort. In deciding what actions to take one HAS TO speculate, how else can you decide what to do? If I have to accept your premise (20 saddam + 20 uday), I still have trouble passing a positive outcome. Think Afghanistan post soviet exit and Iran today. And if i have to accept your premise, let me present another back to you. The insurgency in iraq spreads, an islamist regime eventually takes hold, insurgency begins to ignite fundamentalist fervor in SA and Egypt...you get the picture. Who is better off then? Iraq was invaded post 9/11 for it was a sold to the country as threat to the US. This was of course bullshit then and it is now. I submit to you that nothing good comes from deception and lies. This is a predictable mess, and it can go either way for iraq and for the world. Al