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: Hawkmoon who wrote (195561)	8/7/2006 11:30:55 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<other means" that were ACTIVELY PURSUED in a failed attempt to obtain Saddam's compliance in abiding by the terms of the cease-fire> But the US did not have a cease fire with Iraq. The reason for the invasion was for the US to rid Iraq of WMD because we said the UN wouldn't do it so we would take matters into our own hands -- only there were no WMD so the rationale morphed into "well this is the only way to bring democracy to Iraq". You can't have it both ways. We are not the UN and we badly needed a rationale for invading a sovereign country that did not attack us, so after the fact we chose to reinvent the reason to make it sound noble and to cover for the fact that we were dead wrong on our original excuse for the invasion. I am frequently asked "how else could we have gotten rid of Saddam and promoted democracy" This is a question only an extremist would need answered.