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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (41484)	9/2/2002 11:05:32 AM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 281500

Thank you for the great link.

To: Bilow who wrote (41484)	9/2/2002 12:45:07 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

at this time there are very few countries with "WMDs" (which I translate to mean fleets of nuclear tipped ballistic missiles Ah, the time-honored rhetorical device of changing the definition so that it suits your argument but not that of your opponent. You define WMD as "fleets of nuclear tipped ballistic missiles" but I don't. I define WMD as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, which is the generally accepted definition. fas.org Using my definition, there is no question that Iraq has chemical and biological WMD, and is trying to obtain nuclear WMD. Yes, Carl, even one nuclear weapon is a WMD. But you knew that. fas.org news.independent.co.uk The only question is the immediacy of the threat. cnn.com The supine position you are taking, that of allowing Saddam to keep his little toys, thank God is not the position of people with responsibility. news.google.com