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: TobagoJack who wrote (202519)	9/11/2006 8:58:05 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Okay, so I was exaggerating here and there. Maybe there was a bit more to the attack by King George II on Saddam and sons. I am mindful that there is a lot of oil in the country, for example. But there has been constant support by Saddam of various insurrections. Overall, I can understand a hubris-filled King George II, a prince since birth, making such a strategic blunder as whacking the Saddam tar-baby. I wouldn't have done it. I would not have volunteered to go to Iraq in the conditions offered to help promote world peace and safe markets for CDMA. But I'm not Bush. I can see why he did it. And I never thought WMDs were a real reason [other than a fig-leaf reason]. I'm perhaps less murderous than some and the war against Osama is won in the sense that he can put out videos, well, audios as he's gone quiet on the videos. I assume he doesn't look quite as he did and is lacking in confidence that he can remain concealed with too much imagery - and anyway, a voice is like the voice of -od, booming out from an ethereal place beyond. I think the Iraq war could count as a victory. I would not wish to calculate the return on investment - wars are not normally about a good return on investment [overall, though of course there are always many profits to be made by those who contrive to be the beneficiaries]. Bush beat Saddam. Fair and square. That's a victory. Saddam has taken over from poor old Milosevic as the latest victim of the perpetual picadores of legalistic torment. Bush parades around with his chest out. He won. The cost is beside the point. Sure Saddam is an "Islamic Jihad dude". They all use the pretence of religion to gain temporal power. Clinton and Bush I think are similarly "Christian". It pays to be so. The cliches of Christianity I have heard included turning the other cheek, and what-not. That doesn't seem to have been Bush or Clinton's response to much. Clinton seemed to me to attend church more for the purpose of the girls in the vestibule than the sacraments at the altar. {if I'm using the words correctly}. Osama wants to rule Saudi Arabia. The road to that power runs all over the USA where SUVs gobble megabarrels of Saudi fuel. Saddam and he are Islamic Jihad power grabbers, just varying in their style. One is more mob-friendly than the other, using religious cant to get the oil and control. The other goes with more traditional fear and buying-off, but with the religious aspect well secured. I think Saddam had a Koran written in his blood. Briefly, Mqurice