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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (172642)	10/17/2005 2:02:40 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Michael, you liar. You said many people have said things that made you conclude they thought Saddam's government was positive. Michael, YOU saw these things. Show us. One post. One little post of anyone posting positively about Saddam. There are (according to you) MANY of these- you must have seen them, to know there are many, so post one, just one. I've never seen any so how could I possibly know where to look? - and on top of that it's not up to me to research your lie- but it doesn't surprise me you cannot back it up. "The defenders of Saddam are all over SI"? Please Michael, so we don't have to wonder about this new possible lie, show us a "defender". Oh, wait, are you defining "defenders" as any people who disagree with you about the Iraq war? Is it possible you think anyone who disagrees with you about a war of aggression on another country, and disagrees with you because of valid issues of international law, is somehow (in your mind) a defender of Saddam? Do you not get ANY of the problems with the invasion of Iraq? I realize you might come down differently on the questions involved, but you don't even seem to be able to see any of the questions to begin with. I know, I know, you believe it's a "humanitarian" invasion- but Michael, that really isn't a justification for a unilateral invasion- you must know that. Even Mr. Bush knew that- which is why he needed the WMD issue, and the 9/11 issue. And further this country (and the congress) would never have supported invading Iraq for "humanitarian" reasons- even if it were a legitimate reason to start a war, which it wasn't.