SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dan B. who wrote (74946)3/28/2006 11:06:36 AM
From: OrcastraiterRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
You offer no way to accomplish the removal of Saddam...

There are many ways that Saddam could have been removed. I don't need to outline them. There are many ways to remove a wart. You can cut it off, medicate it off, or freeze it off. Which way is the best? War, invasion and occupation has proved deadly, costly and ineffective for the nation of Iraq. Your prognosis and prescription is more of the same. And you hang on to the notion of sanity?

and you pretend the pre-existing arguments and reasons for sane people wanting to do so were created by Bush. LOL.

I made no such pretense. There is a difference between a policy of regime change and a policy of war. They do not have to be one in the same. Your world simply has a single view...if you don't like it blow it up.

The pretense, is the justification for such deadly methods. And that is the fabrication of Bush. Remember the WMD? The incessant connection to 9-11? All were lies and pretense.

I restate:

So while most sane folks agree that Saddam should go, I don't think any sane person thought that war was the only way to accomplish that goal nor was it an effective way to accomplish that goal...witness the chaos three years into the occupation.

One of the brightest stars in the Bush administration...perhaps the only one...Colin Powell argued strongly against the war option. I'm with him on this one.

Orca