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: bentway who wrote (539260)	12/29/2009 9:45:23 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1577225

Saddam had no legitimate claim to Kuwait. He wanted SA too btw and had previously started the Iran-Iraq war by invading and trying to take the Iranian province of Khuzistan. As for the "highway of death", they should have surrendered instead of running to fight again another day. Why do liberals always sympathize with the most evil force around?

To: bentway who wrote (539260)	12/29/2009 10:06:12 AM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577225

>>> I suggest you review the history, since you're totally wrong. Look up "highway of death" nimrod. No, I'm not wrong. We stopped the war but the stated objective was to eliminate Iraq's ability to make war on its neighbors. It would have been incompetent leadership to NOT have destroyed the column coming out of Kuwait. What, you think you just let the enemy escape with all their weapons so the instant you leave they can move against Kuwait or someone else again? This is the kind of ignorance we have to deal with on the left. Just idiocy. We were engaged in a war for a specific purpose, we did precisely what we said we would, and left. I seriously doubt whether there is any military in history that was so respectful of a UN mandate. I certainly cannot think of one.