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: Broken_Clock who wrote (789429)	6/12/2014 2:20:31 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578372

>> This is the reason why we backed Saddam in the first place. he was a strong man that brought stability and a pro-western view to Iraq. >> Iraq is more stable now than it was under Saddam: yes or no? Of course, today, it is unstable. It wasn't unstable on Jan 20, 2009. But the history isn't quite what you make it out to be. Iraq became less stable during the war as expected, but unexpected was the breakout of violence after the war. GWB, to his credit, went against practically EVERYONE and did what was necessary to recover the situation. When Barack Obama took office the country was on its way to getting on track. But it needed an American presence for a while to keep it that way. Barack Obama wouldn't have it. The destabilization over the last two years has come as a result of the US neglecting the situation. We did not have to have a Camp Victory sized presence but we did need to continue with reasonable security provisions for a time, perhaps a decade. That is not desirable but it is more desirable than what Obama has left us with. Any pro-western view that may have been present was long gone after he had to be removed from Kuwait. He was a continuing threat and his kids were going to be as bad or worse after he was dead. He should have been removed during the Clinton administration, but Clinton did have the stomach for it.

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (789429)	6/12/2014 2:26:56 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578372

Saddam was a cowboy in the ME. He broke the trust of the OPEC nations by selling below their going price. He was also a secular (socialist) leader who discouraged religious power in government, until he started to lose control. That is why we endorsed him for a while. He was a strong man who had our backing in his tyrannical brutalization of his people. I wasn't really paying attention until Madeline Albright made her now famous comment about the deaths of 500,000 children directly resulting from our sanctions being "worth it." That's when I formed a new position. It is evil to target innocents, while hoping an uprising and removal of the Saddam Regime will take place. That was our operation then. My position is always, target your enemy if you must but never target innocents in an effort to bring harm to your enemy.