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 (258797)	11/7/2005 3:51:50 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573020

Saddam needed to be forcibly inspected and disarmed, then preferably removed, as was being done properly before Bush invaded. We should have waited to let the UN inspectors finish their jobs. Then moved to the next step in a thorough, patient manner. Then we would have had the whole world behind us. Removing Saddam a good idea? Sure. Just make sure you have someone to move in to replace him first. Bush invaded with almost no post-invasion plan. Remember when Cheney predicted it would be all over within weeks? And Bush's Mission Accomplished PR stunt? The real issue here was not removing Saddam, but the sheer incompetence and dishonesty associated with Bush's rush to war. Also, it was odious the way Bush-Rove used the trumped up threat of Saddam as a political weapon to smear any opponents as "traitors" and to swipe the 2002 mid-terms which removed subpoena powers to investigate criminal activities by the administration. And they counted on moderate types like you thinking "it's a good thing we removed Saddam" to justify and cover up the rest of their corrupt and inept actions. It was mostly about money though, the continued energy gouging, the big pro-corporate policies and the attacks on environmental protection. Pigs at the trough. Biggest looters of the US treasury in our history.

To: Elroy who wrote (258797)	11/7/2005 4:23:34 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573020

a despotic tyrant that was making the lives of the citizens of Iraq worse and worse The trouble is, there is no evidence that Saddam was making the lives of the citizens of Iraq worse and worse. It was the sanctions, imposed by neocons bitter that Saddam didn't get overthrown after the first Bush war that was making their lives worse and worse. Saddam was actively trying to get the sanctions lifted. Saddam was a rather ordinary despost, just like the ones we support all over. The logical fallacy of your argument is that you assume the point you are trying to show in your premise. If you want to maintain that Saddam was making the citizens life worse and worse then it is necessary to prove that first before using it as the basis of another argument. TP

To: Elroy who wrote (258797)	11/7/2005 4:24:54 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573020

Saddam has been gone for over two years now. Why don't we just pat ourselves on the back, get the hell out and let the Iraqis determine their future? They're going to have to sooner of later anyway. It's just a question of how much American blood ant treasure we waste trying to FORCE the outcome WE want - an outcome that won't last in any case - unless we replace one Saddam with another. It's costing us 6 billion a month to be there. If we were spending an extra 6 billion a month on health care for those that don't have it, the Republicans would be SCREAMING..