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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (111006)	10/24/2000 1:30:28 AM
From: 10K a day	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

man. I believe you. and i believe you are speaking from your heart. But man. that depresses me....

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (111006)	10/24/2000 2:05:22 AM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

>>What is killing the children there is the blockade against medical goods. I don't think there is one.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (111006)	10/24/2000 11:03:54 AM
From: Eric Wells	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

So if you are looking for the objective cause of 5000 children dying each month from preventable causes, the most immediate cause is the blockade of medical goods. Sarmad - this is the way I see the situation: UN sanctions (sponsored and supported by the US) limit the amount of oil that Iraq can sell to the world, and therefore, limit the amount of revenue Iraq is able to obtain to buy food and supplies to support it's population. The sanctions also impose restrictions on importing certain goods - however, I don't believe general medical supplies are restricted. Iraq is permitted to sell some oil - and as such, they are able to get some money coming in. Is the money Iraq receives enough to provide enough food and medical care to support its population? I don't know. I do know that Saddam spends a lot of money - he is reportedly putting a lot of money into building the world's largest mosque in Baghdad, he supposedly continues to build new homes for himself, and he apparently continues to poor a lot of money into his military. I do not view Saddam as a leader who exercises prudent fiscal discipline with the goal of saving money to buy medical supplies to save the lives of Iraqi children who are dying. So some money flows into Iraq - and Saddam builds mosques, palaces and weapons - and children die due to lack of medicine. Who is to blame? Some take the view that the US is to blame - they state the US has the power to lift the sanctions, and through such lifting, needed goods will start to flow into Iraq lifting the livelihood of Iraqi citizens. Some take the view that Saddam is to blame, that he has the power to stop the sanctions - if Saddam would step down from power, or openly negotiate with the US, the sanctions could be lifted tomorrow. In my view, it is not possible to justify dying children - so therefore, I personally believe the blame is shared - that when it comes to dying children, both the US and Saddam are to blame - both the US and Saddam have the power to save these children, but neither take action to do so. I believe it is disingenuous to talk about blaming one party without talking about blaming the other. But it seems that far too many who discuss this issue tend to take one side or the other - it's either America's fault or Saddam's fault. -Eric

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (111006)	10/24/2000 12:14:35 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

sarmad, irag is a sad story. saddam is evil. EVIL. do you end the embargo and allow saddam to divert all the money he can to develop weapons of mass destruction and quite possibly bring the world powers into conflict or do you allow saddam to kill the children of his country? HE IS the KILLER. nobody else. to say the embargo is the cause is like saying serial killer isn't responsible b/c he didn't get enough attention. after all, he wouldn't kill if he just got more attention. i don't know the answer, though it is not an easy question to answer - especially if you are to be held responsible when saddam's weapons of mass destruction eventually find their target. do you really think that saddam doesn't want to take out a number of nations when he finally realizes his time is up? "i go, we all go..." is something i bet he's thinking...