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: one_less who wrote (214633)	1/25/2007 12:06:02 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Message 23219227 In this post you seem to be saying you think he was a threat, and you give us Saddam's rhetoric, and the fact that Bill may have thought he was a threat. If that is not some sort of evidence for the justification of the idea that Saddam was a threat, what is it? If you think he was a threat to the US, then we disagree. And I disagree with the justification you give for your past decision- if you did in fact make a decision. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. I was just trying to figure out what you were saying, and where we disagree. If that is uncomfortable for you we can certainly stop. ps- the point about defending mistakes? People are constantly defending Bush's decision to go in to Iraq based on his incorrect assessment of Saddam's weapons, his weapon programs, and his designs on the US via connections to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. An incorrect assessment is a mistake. Now one can argue, as people do on SI, that the assessment was justified, but that's defending a mistake. I can't believe you've missed that.