Foreign Affairs Discussion Group 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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: GST who wrote (140643)	7/16/2004 4:25:02 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) of 281500

I did, Saddam Hussien himself was a weapon of mass destruction. He proved it over a thirty year period. No doubt he would have killed hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions had he been allowed to stay in power. It seems to me you're suggesting a bunch of chemicals is more dangerous than an evil person like Saddam Hussein. Chemicals don't think, chemicals don't act on their own. Many countries in the world have weapons of mass destruction, it's how you use them that makes them dangerous. Saddam already demonstrated the will to use them and no doubt would have used them in the future had he been allowed to maintain his fascist grip on power. Heck, he could probably have bought more in a few months from the nut-job in North Korea. Oh, and by the way, you're answer to the question was telling. As I said before, it seems to me you're waiting to find the three fingered start buttom from Total Recall. Reality is a bit difference. It's likely the huge quantities of chemical weapons captured just before detonation in Jordan were from Saddam's stockpiles shipped to Syria just before the war. Not considering the possibility is telling...

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next