SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (74576)2/16/2003 3:18:56 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi   of 281500
 
>> 1. While polarized Security Council members continue to argue the pros and cons of America’s demand to disarm Saddam Hussein by force, US Marines and special forces, supported by British and Jordanian commandos, have pretty much completed the conquest of western Iraq where some of Saddam’s forbidden weapons were known to be stationed. <<

I have some problems with this statement. If we control the area, we should have control of the weapons too. If we don't have control of the weapons, we took the area but allowed the weapons to be withdrawn. That doesn't make sense. Unless we waited to take control of the area until after the weapons were withdrawn. But that doesn't make sense either.

If we actually have control of any of these weapons, then now we are at the point where we need to say so and produce them.

I'm real uncomfortable with the math in this statement. It doesn't add up. Perhaps it was just carelessly written?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News