Formerly About Applied Materials Message Board

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 Applied Materials

AMAT 267.87

-0.6%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: chomolungma who wrote (67625)	2/5/2003 3:02:35 PM
From: runes	Read Replies (2) of 70976

Chromolungma - no they are two separate points My point goes to the credibility of the US government and by extension to the US as a country. IF we are so determined to prove Iraq guilty and we are so tapped in, then it is a reasonable expectation that we should be able to assist the inspectors to prove our point. Which would give credible third party verification. Your point is that the UN has put the burden of proof on Iraq and they are failing to meet that. Which is up to the UN to rule upon. And they are hesitant to do so because of the heavy costs associated with the ensuing war and aftermath. And the uncomfortable precedent it sets for invading a country on the absence of proof. And frankly because the Bush admin. choose to confront the UN with the attitude of "We're going to do this and if your not on board then your meaningless". (Not a good way to garner support). So they continue to look to the inspectors for something more concrete. And that's where the US capabilities come into play. We pushed the resolution on the grounds that we know they are in violation. So I suspect that they are waiting for the US to provide proof positive (as do I).

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next