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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (65944)	9/17/2002 8:00:50 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 70976

Fred, US has a laundry list of things Iraq must do. Of course there can be compromises. I think part of what the US is trying to accomplish is to encourage military folks in Bagdad to take out saddam themselves. Most of them will get a free pass if this happens and WMD are voluntarily given up. IF we are willing to do that in Korea, i am sure it will be ok here. Then of course the liberals can complain how bush sold out the iraqi people because the new govt would more than likely be a military dictatorship. But in the end, elimination of wmd and maintaining iraq as a state probably are more important for US interests--at least s/t to intermediate. Mike PS The Brit who drafted the 1967 UN reslolution wrote that it was not meant to mean all territories and commented specifically on the non-defensible pre-67 borders. US echoed this at the time. It was written this way, i believe so the Arabs states could get on board. Resolutions certainly should be more clear. Mike