SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (237604)7/24/2007 1:22:48 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 281500
 
Saddam remaining in power with no sanctions and plenty of money would have had no more need to bluff. He could have gone shopping. AQ Khan would have gladly done business with him. Like Saddam said, in one of his more rational moments, his big mistake was in not waiting until he had nukes before he invaded Kuwait.

Or do you love wars so much you can't imagine why someone might think it better not to have one than to have one?


You're pretty damn good in the smear department yourself. Lots of people wanted to go to war in 1938, not because they "loved wars" but because the alternative was worse. The "peace-loving" crowd won that argument, and 10s of millions died who would likely have lived because of it.



To: epicure who wrote (237604)7/24/2007 2:01:14 AM
From: Sdgla  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
Have you not read what all of the dems said about Saddam and his wmd cash BEFORE we invaded ? You have very little wiggle room playing Monday morning President.... were you willing to risk what the lunatic was going to do while every one was saying he had wmd and was going to use them AGAIN ?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News