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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (44969)	10/24/2005 10:11:56 AM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362466

Why was taking out Saddam a good thing? It has resulted in thousands of Iraqis getting blown up. A cousin of my receptionist is a military doctor, just came back from there and said it was horrific, he saw corpses of children with their heads blown off on a regular basis. If the Iraqis wanted Saddam taken out it was up to them to do it, not us.

To: American Spirit who wrote (44969)	10/24/2005 10:24:43 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362466

I'll go with Red's answer, all the way.

To: American Spirit who wrote (44969)	10/24/2005 10:48:50 AM
From: James Calladine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362466

You can't talk about taking out Saddam as a good thing, detached from: -- no justification for the war -- the killing of tens to hundreds of thousands of innocents -- your own casualties -- the virtual certainty of guerilla warfare -- the inability to prevail in guerilla warfare -- the cost -- no occupation strategy -- no exit strategy -- the lying and deceit necessary to sell the war MILLIONS of people opposed and demonstrated against this war world wide. There is no evidence that I know of that Robert Byrd was "snookered". His public speeches suggest exactly the opposite. If you have a reason for saying that, please say it. Namaste! Jim

To: American Spirit who wrote (44969)	10/24/2005 12:03:31 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362466

...as Bush started showing signs of skipping over the UN and going directly into Iraq. It was obvious from the start that Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what went on the U.N. That song and dance was strictly for his lap-poodle's benefit. It's not like they were delaying the deployment while they discussed the matter with the security council. They were setting up the invasion force as rapidly as possible and did not pause while Powell traded his credibility and Kerry pondered if Bush was taking the U.N. inspection reports seriously. TP

To: American Spirit who wrote (44969)	10/24/2005 2:50:12 PM
From: cirrus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362466

America contained Saddam for more than a decade without loss of life. There is no reason why he could not have been contained for another decade, until the Kurds, Shiites or even some disgrunted Sunnis were strong enough to remove him. There was no compelling national interest to remove Saddam at the time Bush choose to do so. Obviously the occupation has gone badly. However, the three Iraqi ethnic groups dislike each other and have for centuries. There is no assurance a more carefully prepared plan of occupation and reconstruction would have succeeded in preventing what we are seeing today. The problem with the Iraq War was not taking out Saddam, that was a good thing.