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: Bald Eagle who wrote (2542)	10/10/2002 3:25:23 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

If inspectors asked to inspect a place and Saddam refused, I would think Saddam would as quickly as possible move anything of value out so the subsequent bombing, unless done quickly, would accomplish little or nothing. And Bush would still need authority to use force to carry out those bombings. And we should expect Saddam to parade crying widows and wounded civilians before world TV cameras after each raid.

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (2542)	10/11/2002 7:23:34 PM
From: E	Respond to of 7689

I feel for you, dealing with all this from the position of father and uncle to boys who will be doing the fighting. It puts my personal angst in perspective. I don't see what's wrong with your plan, especially once we have allies on board, which we will if we get the UN authorization. (We'll also have a more united country.) How about when WMD are found, civilians are ordered out as happens in an airport if there's a bomb threat, video and other evidence is gathered by a multi-nation team, and the weapons are disabled or destroyed. I don't know what "one warning" means. If they're there, they're there. I have an idea: if it's biological or chemical and Saddam claims it's talcum powder, he gets a chance to prove it by rolling around in it!