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 (222656)	3/6/2007 11:51:29 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think you're twisting events around to fit the way you want them to rather than looking at events objectively. We certainly didn't invade Iraq to fight Islamic extremism. Saddam was a horrible thug who just happened to be a Muslim, not a horrible Muslim who happened to be in power. I agree that the horrible thugness came first, and the 12 years of a state of war against the US. But the fact that sanctions were breaking down fast as Saddam paid off the UNSC with Oil for Food bribes, was trying to adopt Islamism, and was aiding terrorists all over the place, and had WMDs with no inspections since 1998, made the matter more urgent after 9/11. When sanctions failed, and Saddam bribed enough of the UNSC to get a new vote, the US would have had to back down entirely, and leave Saddam free to do what he liked in the Middle East. If the US had actually received help from the UN in containing Saddam, instead of "you contain him, we'll take the bribes and undermine you", it might not have been necessary at all.