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: epicure who wrote (211839)	1/5/2007 5:18:26 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Re the people on the left who damn the US for the modest aid it gave to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. Surely that aid must have been justified if it let the "no better solution" survive (not to mention kept a more dangerous enemy from conquering his country) and it doesn't mean the US was pro-Saddam at the time - wouldn't you agree? So those leftwing critics are totally wrong aren't they, if Saddam was a "no better solution" or as I'd say a necessary evil? Re. people judged to be "no better solutions" or necessary evils - what do we do if they give sanctuary and aid to people and groups who have murdered Americans (as Saddam assuredly did), and if their diplomats are caught in foreign countries giving money to terror groups (like Abu Sayyaf) who murder Americans, and if terror groups launch assassinations against our diplomats from their territory? What if we catch the "no better solution" guy trying to assassinate a former President (pretend it was Clinton instead of Bush I - certainly Saddam hated both)? Do we just dismiss all this and say we have to put up with this - for he's the "no better solution" guy and he needs to be preserved in power? Do we put up with it forever or only till he succeeds in assassinating a figure (assuming we can ignore the occasional soldier or diplomat) we can't ignore?