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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (228199)	4/22/2007 5:33:17 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Since we never had a triumphant rearmed Saddam and I think it extremely unlikely we would have, I don't see the point, Nadine. You can say sanctions would have collapsed and he would have gotten nukes, but I can say they would not have, and he would not have gotten nukes. I will say that he would have remained a bullwark to Iranian aggression, and Al Qaeda expansionism. IRan would have stayed more fixated and worried about Iraq, and had less time to dabble in trouble making elsewhere. You can't very well prove me wrong- since the things I posit would happen at least have some grounding in what was actually happening. Iraq's pathetic state is very good evidence for my POV, and very poor evidence for yours. But don't worry, I have no illusions that you will change your mind, and your imaginings will not change mine.