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 (214637)	1/25/2007 12:21:23 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"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." I gave you my assessment of the situation. I explained why I felt an attack on Saddam to remove him and his regime was justified. I don't speak for or defend the Bush Administration for many reasons but on this one... as I have already said, I did not see Saddam as an immediate threat (Which was part of the admin's justification) I said so at the time and I have repeated it. I saw Bill Clinton's comment to reflect almost perfectly on how I viewed things in 1998. We can disagree on whether he understood Saddam or not. You called Saddam a blowfish, which is like saying he's all talk and would never act out. That doesn't match the character and conduct of the historical Saddam. However, its pointless beyond that to argue whether he would've used his power in massively aggressive ways in the future, just because he has in the past. You don't think he ever would've. As I've said, I am certain, he was biding his time until the opportunity became ripe... he's definitely not going to.