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: Brumar89 who wrote (211829)	1/5/2007 4:21:15 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It's not "pro-Saddam" to see that Saddam solved some problems. That's like saying people for abortion choice are "pro-death" (or even "pro abortion"- which is just as silly.). Sure it sounds snappy, but it doesn't happen to be true. What it means is that in some situations there are ugly solutions that work, and ugly ones that don't work (in the opinion of the person making the judgment). In this case invasion has turned out to be an ugly solution that doesn't work. Saddam, in his way, held the country together, and thus could be considered an ugly solution that worked. Saying that is not being pro Saddam- it is recognizing that Iraq presented a pallette of distasteful choices, and our job was to pick the one that made the most sense, Clearly you could weigh the varying factors differently, but coming up with Saddam as a "solution" of a kind, is not pro Saddam, anymore than saying those who invaded Iraq were "pro killing Iraqis and US soldiers". One assumes both sides of the argument want to minimize deaths (ours and theirs), and stabilize the region. I find it amazing that people choose to caste the language of the problem in such simplistic and false ways.