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 : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (2533)	10/10/2002 3:00:13 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7689

YES! You've succinctly expressed a feeling that more than a few Americans have. And I'm taking the liberty of re-posting it" I have the eerie feeling that there is an agenda we aren't being told about by the administration. I haven't seen the evidence that unilateral invasion not supported by most Americans or any of our allies except, sort of, one, is the only way we can be safe from Saddam -- in fact, I fear that giving him nothing to lose may be the most dangerous thing we can do; and I definitely don't have the feeling that this invasion will make us safer from Islamofascism. In fact, the opposite is my fear.

To: E who wrote (2533)	10/10/2002 4:29:20 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

In fact, the inspection regime, before we pulled out in 1998, had achieved significant results. It was a change in strategy, and was a mistake, and followed the embarrassing revelation that the inspectorate had been infiltrated and its purposes corrupted by the CIA. This is a dangerous revisionism...While it is true the inspectors had made good progress, that progress came without the cooperation of Saddma's regime and often in the fact of harrassment and intimdation by the Iraqis... fact is..Saddam was required to cooperate, he never did...never even tried....