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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (273199)	10/8/2008 9:02:24 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793970

mph, there wasn't a change. You obviously didn't actually READ the details. It was okay by me if Americans and King George II wanted to play "whose the toughest" with Saddam. But it wasn't the optimum solution which was a New United Nations, meaning reconstituted. If do a search using "Bigfoot" as a term, you'll find reference to those non-existent WMDs [at the time]. I know there's a fair bit of writing there, but grunts and slogans don't adequately cover it. The USA really bumbled the occupation, firing all the soldiers, allowing looting etc. They should have just nipped the head of the snake instead of usurping everyone. I even got the number or USA casualties right, as well as the length of the war [110 minutes being one Globalstar satellite orbit period - which was obviously a figure of speech as it takes longer than that to drive to Baghdad even if unopposed]. Iraqis had little interest in dying for Saddam and gave up as soon as possible. Mqurice