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: RetiredNow who wrote (542862)	1/11/2010 2:37:37 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1574636

It was an easier target but you know we'd already fought Saddam and the first Gulf war only ended by truce. We had troops in SA and Kuwait guarding against reinvasion, patrolling their skies and being shot at daily. Personally, I think Bush should have set a deadline and bombed Iran's nuclear sites before leaving office. I suppose politically he couldn't have. Particularly after the Democrats took Congress.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (542862)	1/11/2010 2:51:31 PM
From: jlallen	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574636

Wrong. You would not attack NK because they already had nukes. You would not resort to attacking Iran (at that time) becuase they did not have nukes yet and they had shown no proppensity to use WMD. Iraq had no nukes but was trying to acquire them, had shown a willingness to use WMD and was in violation of the '91 ceasefire agreement, including shooting at US and British airmen patrolling the no fly zone. One size does not fit all.....and of course part of the reason Bush decided to invade Iraq was to insure the free flow of oil from the ME....the free flow of oil is what drives the global economy. Sh's past history of aggression could not be ignored. J.