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 (228169)	4/22/2007 12:11:14 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Let's not forget that until GWB, it was Republicans that saw the "good" side of Saddam. The Reagan administration was Saddam's good friend, even to the extend of whitewashing his gassing of the Kurds. And Bush senior deliberately left Saddam in place after the first Gulf war, ignoring his slaughter of the Shiites, while having three times more troops than we now have at his doorstep.

To: epicure who wrote (228169)	4/22/2007 2:53:39 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sometimes an evil dictator serves our purposes. Saddam certainly did, as you succinctly pointed out. In retrospect, he was doing a fantastic job of keeping Iraq one federal country and keeping the terrorists OUT. He was a brutal, sadistic, evil dictator - of which there are many in the world. He was not a threat to the United States, and we had no obligation to "liberate" that country. A MASSIVE foreign policy mistake that we will be paying for for decades..

To: epicure who wrote (228169)	4/22/2007 5:14:24 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

How many liberals noticed the 400,000 Iraqis that Saddam shovelled into mass graves? If Saddam had no truck with al Qaeda, why was Zarqawi a) in Baghdad and b) on Saddam's payroll? Ever heard the saying, "my enemy's enemy is my friend"?

To: epicure who wrote (228169)	4/22/2007 10:06:00 PM
From: Keith Feral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't think you keep a guy like Saddam on the streets just to worry about the backlash. He was killed by his own people for war crimes. I think his story is over. If the Sunnis choose to kill the Shiites in a bid for a power struggle, I can't see the reason to blame Bush for mishandling the way the terrorists have continued to arm themselves. Iraq is a current battle of medieval militias and insurgent fighters. It may be completely ridiculous, but we have to support the human rights of this new democratic government in Iraq. If we don't let our soldiers help the Iraqi government survive this violent transition, there will never be hope for an Iraqi government. It makes no LOGICAL to request a deadline to leave Iraq when the Iraq government is requesting our friendship and support. Right now, the Democratic liberals are splitting hairs to gain political leverage. That's OK with me because I know they have to compete with the Republicans for office. The Iranians have to compete for higher oil prices too. They certainly like to add geopolitical risk premiums in the energy sector to consider. The main difference between N Korea and Iraq is that N Korea is begging for financial assistance and Iraan is trying to extort the money thru higher oil prices. Look who is coming to the table first. N Korea is coming to the table since they have no way of benefitting from the hostility. Iran is cashing in with missile revenues and higher oil prices. To me, the only people that can be blaming Bush for the violence in Iraq must be trying to take his job.