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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (410861)	8/27/2008 10:11:08 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576641

All of your points are speculative.... A few are just very, very probable, the rest are fact. Where is the benefit from Iraq?

To: jlallen who wrote (410861)	8/27/2008 10:32:24 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576641

I tend to agree. Although the war in Iraq was over-hyped and not fought correctly, a good or even a fair outcome still leaves the world better off than saddam in power. I have been listening to the dems take the other tack regarding the unnecessary war. That has some truth to it too, but when i go down that road in terms of logic, I see that now in 2008, saddam would still be running iraq. How out of the containment box would he be by now? Dont know, but i suspect the euros would have been dealing with him and what about the newly resurgent russians? I wonder what kind of trouble he would be causing today? Would he be close to getting wmds? What would his relations be to the terrorists, to the saudis. All unknowable but even the biggest anti-war guys wouldnt say that he couldnt pose a threat by 2008.