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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (84097)	7/25/2000 6:32:46 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

"would the money go to the people or be spent on more armaments to kill Saddam's percieved enemies in Iraq?" I guess it would be spent first on rebuilding infrastructure and after that a combination of military and social expenditures. Iraq has seriously fallen behind the rest of the world. With modern surveilance technology it doesn't look like they could go far undetected. There are plenty of countries with even more lethal nuclear weapons including the U.S., Russian, the Ukraine, China, France, Britain, and possibly South Africa, India, Pakistan, Israel. It is arguable that their development of atomic weapons upped the ante in the Middle East Arms race and helped fuel Hussein's development of chemical and biological weapons, the "poor man's nuclear weapon." Yet the United Nations and President Clinton is not proposing bombing any of the other countries.