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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NOW who wrote (107918)	2/5/2010 12:05:48 AM
From: dave9	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

The reason will change again after we leave.

To: NOW who wrote (107918)	2/5/2010 10:05:50 AM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

How in the world did i think it was to prevent WMD's? Because that was the line that Bush/Cheney were focusing on. We should have overthrown Saddam in 1991 to begin with when the evidence was fresh regarding his aggression. But we definitely should have overthrown his regime in 1998 when he committed that MATERIAL BREACH of the cease fire and halted cooperation with UNSCOM. Imagine.. what if we'd signed a cease-fire with Hitler in 1944 when we had liberated France, Belgium, and Holland? Do you think Hitler would have halted his attempts at acquiring nuclear weapons (he already had chemical weapons)? Don't put to tomorrow, what needs to be done today. That is, unless you want to sacrifice your children to the some global conflagration that you were too frightened to prevent via prophylactic measures. That said, there was good reason to believe Saddam had squirreled away Chemical weapons that he was supposed to destroy. His own foreign minister told us so.. and he was in a position to know. Hawk