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 : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (18158)	12/3/2002 4:14:24 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

Obviously not. I'm not surprised you can't fathom the immoral nature of such a suggestion. LOL!!! Just the kind of response one would expect from someone who's grey matter is denser than depleted uranium... or should that be depleted curanium.. :0) However, many tort lawyers around the world would disagree with you... If I serve you too many drinks as a bartender, I can be sued for any harm you inflict. If I sell a gun to a criminal without doing the proper background check, I'm responsible for any criminal acts he commits with that weapon... But let's just assume that "honest" folks are responsible for ensuring that Saddam no longer possesses CWs or WMDs in general (the french sold them a nuclear reactor and the Russians sent their scientists and molecular biologists, so they're out).. Then we have to ask why it was these same "honest folks" who completely failed, AFTER FOUR YEARS OF INSPECTIONS, to discover THOUSANDS OF TONNES of CW and related manufacturing facilities... Why was it that, only after the defection and debriefing of a high level Iraqi scientist and Saddam's son in law, by the US, these weapons were discovered and destroyed?? tms.physics.lsa.umich.edu Without the defection of Saddam's SIL, Hussein Kamal Hussein, we would never have discovered literally millions of pages of documentation and weapons.. Because he was hiding much of it on his chicken farm.. which obviously was not on the inspection list for UNSCOM. Even Scott Ritter admits this.. pbs.org Btw, regarding who armed Saddam, the NY Times would disagree with your view of US complicity. If anyone is to blame for Saddam's CW program, it's West Germany and their chemical industry. iraqwatch.org And once more, a list of items that are not physically accounted for by Iraq (except claiming they were "secretly destroyed"): iraqwatch.org But once again... The US is the only nation capable of ensuring Saddam is disarmed, and according to you, bears the responsibility for having armed it. Thus, lacking an effective policing power in the world today, we'll have to enforce the law ourselves and bring justice to those thousands to died in Saddam's chemical attacks. Hawk

To: Thomas M. who wrote (18158)	12/3/2002 6:21:23 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 23908

Doesn't your logic give the US the IMPLICIT, if not COMPELLING right/responsibility to ensure that these weapons are accounted for and never abused again?? Obviously not. I'm not surprised you can't fathom the immoral nature of such a suggestion. I believe it was your fellow slug Brumar who had the same idea. Thank you for giving me some credit. I did point out that your past lies that America created Saddam and that America gave him his WMD's would make it our responsibility to remedy the situation. Just as Exxon was responsible for cleaning up Prince William Sound. Of course, this argument is ultimately based on your lies so all it does is show your inability to follow your arguments through to their logical conclusion. Kudos to Hawkmoon.