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: SARMAN who wrote (211761)	1/4/2007 7:13:01 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Might be true for Israel. Saddam drained off a lot of manpower and resources into killing other Arabs and Iranians.

To: SARMAN who wrote (211761)	1/4/2007 9:59:33 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi SARMAN; Interesting quote: "“If I knew then what I know today, I would not have recommended going to war, because Saddam was far less dangerous than I thought,” said Haifa University political scientist Amatzia Baram, one of Israel’s leading Iraq experts." It's interesting for two reasons. (a) Since it was obvious to me that having Saddam in Iraq was better than what would happen if we invaded (because of the inevitable un-winnable guerilla war), how stupid would one of "Israel's leading Iraq experts" have to be to think otherwise? It makes me wonder how sure Israel is of surviving the century. (b) What the Hell is an Israeli doing making recommendations on US foreign policy? That's the tail wagging the dog. -- Carl