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: RMF who wrote (801287)	8/14/2014 3:14:58 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1576826

>> If ANYBODY had an excellent opportunity to dispose of Saddam, he did. Shouldn't you be blaming him rather than Clinton? You would have been among the first to express your outrage. I think it is one of Bush 41's finest moments; he did precisely what he set out to do, accomplished it extreme efficiency, and that was all he had UN support for doing. >> Bush Sr. had the whole world behind him in 1991 and all he had to say was, "Take Baghdad". That is not correct. A lot of people (including me) thought we should never have involved the UN; but once we did, that established the limits of the commitment. And of course, there was no known al Qaeda threat at the time. The failure was during the Clinton years, when there was an existing cease fire agreement that was repeatedly violated without meaningful action on the part of the US.