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 Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (157150)	12/31/2002 11:31:18 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580067

The Prez has talked about regime change ad nauseatum, then about disarmament, then regime change, one bullet, axis of evil, exile, war, war, more war, will do it alone, like minded nations, etc... You're changing the subject. The point is that Saddam had what amounted to an amnesty opportunity. "You've violated the ceasefire agreement repeatedly. If you will come clean with your declaration, and we can totally eliminate your possession of WMD, then you will be able to keep your little dictatorship. Otherwise, you're going to lose it all -- WMD, dictatorship, power.". It was clear. There could have been no misunderstanding. A policy of preferring regime change is no way in conflict with that of allowing Saddam to retain his power should he disarm. American and British companies are lining up to win contracts to develop Iraqi oil. You have a problem with this? Should American/British oil companies submit the highest bids, you have a problem with a post-Saddam Iraq dealing with them? You, protector of the Iraqi people, think they should take lesser bids for their precious commodity? 50 years of previous administrations have managed to control and APPEASE (according to you) NK Well, you certainly can't argue that the previous administration CONTROLLED NK. Under Clinton, NK has built nuclear weapons and enhanced their delivery systems. No, "appeasement" is definitely the correct term. The Koreans are restarting their program NOW Let's not rehash what is already known. The Koreans "restarted" their "program" shortly after entering into the Carter/Clinton agreement, because the knew damned well there would be no consequences from a weak administration. They said yesterday that it was a move of self defense against perceived American aggression. They said. They said. What the HELL does it matter what THEY said? They're damned liars from the get go, which is precisely why the Clinton/Carter agreement should NEVER have been entered into without verifiability. It is just totally clear that the Carter/Clinton agreement is responsible for NK having these nukes.