DON'T START THE WAR 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 : DON'T START THE WAR

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (18710)	3/10/2003 4:21:56 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (3) of 25898

What's sad here is I realistically think Saddam is holding back on some chemical weapons. Not a lot of 'em, but a sufficient quantity by which he feels he can defend Baghdad. I believe the statements of his son, whom Saddam murdered after defecting and returning to Iraq, that the bulk of what the US and British leaders are complaining about was buried in 1991. From this thread's header (bulletin section): * Weapons of mass destruction? Judge for yourself! un.org msnbc.com fair.org worldnetdaily.com arabmediawatch.com And I think it's well-proven by now that the US harping on the nuclear issue not only was a false lead, but that the recently determined fabricated documents prove this. The history of Saddam's warring shows he's used chemical weapons defensively against the Iranians, with the Kurds caught in between. This is evidenced by the fact he didn't use them when he invaded Kuwait nor during the previous Gulf War. I'm saddened to think that chemicals actually will become used when otherwise they never would have been used, and I'm even sadder to note that they'll likely be used against America's sons and daughters all because of Bush and the fundamentalist radicals in the White House who are advising him.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next