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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (703132)	9/22/2005 1:52:55 PM
From: cirrus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You're right. It doesn't matter. A shotgun is a WMD if you line up a thousand people and shoot each one individually. Still, Saddam was contained. I don't know how many Saddam killed since the no-fly zones were established, but I would guess not many. I'd bet more were killed in Bosnia, North Korea, Somalia, Siri Lanka and other less known places. It doesn't excuse Saddam, or say we should not take out any single dictator because we can't take them all out. Still, I imagine we could have undermined Saddam and reduced him to tinpot status by working more closely with the Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north. The result might have split Iraq permanently, but would that have been a bad thing? It may well happen anyway. The Afghan war was effective because we relied on Afghans to do much of the fighting. Osama got away, but there is no saying he would have been captured if we had 500,000 troops in Afghanistan. Understand, I am not a Saddam supporter. I would have loved to see him gone earlier and I wish Clinton did more than just uphold the stats quo. But the way we barged into Iraq was wrong, and we are paying the price with blood and treasure, and will continue to do so for some time.