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

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (78556)	7/29/2006 2:56:47 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Respond to of 81568

Yeah, sanctions don't work. But invasions do?! What a total frigging moron!

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (78556)	7/29/2006 3:25:48 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

It is clear that the sanctions hurt Saddam. That was good. He was not able to produce WMD. He was less of a threat to his neighbors and to us. That was proved by the unnecessary war which showed no WMD were found. It was Saddam that chose to let children die and to take the money from oil for food for his own lavish excesses. It shows that sanctions are effective. Now clearly the desired result of the sanctions was not to have Saddam neglecting the children. That's why no matter what course is chosen, sanctions or invasions, one needs to keep the finger on the pulse and make needed adjustments to strategy as required. The UN failed to retool the sanctions when it saw that kids were bearing the brunt of the sanctions. The failure was in not reacting to conditions on the ground. Even with war, strategy needs to be adjusted to meet field conditions. That is why Bush is talking about increasing troop levels in Iraq. Things are not going as expected there either. Remember cake walk? Music and Flowers? We'll be greeted as liberators? This war will last 6 to 12 months?