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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (22988)	9/16/2006 1:31:56 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

We had little understanding of how far along Saddam's nuclear program was. Saddam had the means to end our "control" over him (the no-fly zones & int'l sanctions) by simply cooperating with UN arms inspectors during the 12 years between the two wars. We don't know why he didn't do that (I invite you to explain that if you disagree). What we did understand about Saddam was that he was undeterrable, utterly ruthless and reckless. Undeterrable in that he refused to pull out of Kuwait when confronted by an int'l coalition supported by the entire world that he couldn't defeat. Ruthless in that he'd used WMD's on civilians already, including citizens of his own country. Reckless in that as his troops were being driven from Kuwait he had all of Kuwait's oil wells blown up out of spite. Also out of spite he sent assassins to try to kill ex-Pres. Bush. ---------------------------- As for being pro-Saddam, you said Iraq and the world was better off with Saddam in power. That's pro-Saddam to me. Re. NK, I don't believe for a minute NK or the world is better off with Kim Jong Il in power. I don't think we should invade NK now only because it borders China (a more mature nuclear power) and we've already had one war with China over NK. ----------------------------- Filling Afghanistan with troops is how the Russians handled the country. It seems to me we have been largely successful in Afghanistan - there are Taliban elements but they aren't anywhere near powerful enough to take over. And al Qaida isn't operating in Afghanistan any longer. AQ isn't operating openly anywhere now, but are in hiding in various parts of Pakistan. Re. Clinton's failure to get OBL and his compatriots - at the time, OBL was operating openly in Afghanistan - they had training camps with thousands of recruits from around the world in the country. A different situation from today.

To: RMF who wrote (22988)	9/18/2006 7:36:22 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

<< "We had Saddam under control and we had some understanding of Saddam. THAT'S why I didn't think it was necessary to invade Iraq." >> I see that you continue to make assertions of fact via baseless OPINION. And as usual your opinion is completely at odds with known facts. The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) & the investigations into the Oil-for-Food (OFF) scandal have utterly destroyed the leftist meme that Saddam was "boxed in". Not only was Saddam not "boxed in", he was regularly shooting at coalition forces enforcing the no-fly zones - each instance a clear act of war. Saddam was actively bribing the top officials of the UN, members of the Security Council & politicians from France, Russia, China, Germany & the UK, ET AL., with the full intention of having them bring an end to UN Sanctions & the Inspections regime. Saddam was using proceeds from OFF to make illegal weapons purchases, as well as for equipment & materials to improve his WMD Programs. He was also signing extremely lucrative contracts with those countries that were dependent on the end of sanctions & inspections. And the ISG alone gathered overwhelming proof to conclude that the bribes were working & when sanctions were lifted & inspections ended, Saddam fully intended to ramp up his WMD programs immediately. This thread has documented this evidence nine ways to Sunday. You may ignore those independently verifiable facts all you wish. You may not continue to express that faulty opinion here unless some new set of genuine facts somehow emerges to discredit the massive amount of evidence already known. You see, this thread only allows reality based opinions. And yours thus far are, at best, personal assumptions lacking any basis in reality.

To: RMF who wrote (22988)	9/18/2006 7:58:25 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

I see you've chosen to ignore this: Message 22811929 Why is that? You seem capable of asserting your personal opinion as if it were fact. Why is it that you never can back it up when someone challenges you to provide facts & credible evidence to support your bold assertions? Well, no more on this thread. That's not how it works here. This thread was created to expose all manner of reality defying claptrap, not to express them as fact. If you can't back up past assertions when challenged, you are not permitted to make new ones on this thread. Read the thread header & comply 100%. No excuses.