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: Elroy who wrote (212504)	1/11/2007 10:57:03 AM
From: SARMAN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Perhaps if the "rest of the world" had gotten off their hands in the decade preceding the invasion and done something about the situation in Iraq, the "rest of the world" could have removed Saddam in a manner that would have maintained stability and security of the country. But they didn't. Elroy, you know that there is an alternative to invading and bombing a country. It is called negotiation in good faith. Yes negotiation takes time and suffer set backs and at the end it might work or might not, but it has higher chance of working. The US should have exhausted every avenue available to it, but it did not. You can't go blaming the rest of world for a mistake that the US administration made. Did you not wonder why the rush to go to Iraq? I do not think to save the Iraqi people from Saddam. They suffered for a long time under Saddam, couple more years would have not change things much. And Saddam surly was not a threat to the US of America.