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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greg s who wrote (39)	1/3/2003 10:08:06 PM
From: Rollcast...	Respond to of 25898

What I took away from this experience was that my government could be less-than-forthcoming about the facts of war. Monolithic would be inaccurate. I would say that, on the rare occasion when corroboration is absent, I am more accepting of our government's position over that of Iraq's. The monolithic attitude now primarily belongs to the left - where any position contrary to that of the US is accepted as truth (see karen lawrence, stockman scott, or durray for examples). Honestly, I would have expected some evidence by the time we started a big troop build-up. Honestly, how much evidence does one need??? There is an abundance of it since the Gulf War... if one refuses to accept US reports check the UN reports. If not those - how about PBS? pbs.org In 1995, Saddam Hussein actually appeared to be winning in his strategy of cheat and retreat. He had actually managed to hide so many of his weapons that many of the U.N. weapons inspectors thought that he had turned over most of them, and were prepared to make that kind of recommendation. And it was only on the defection of his son-in-law and cousin [Kamel] that the international community realized how much he really still had. The whole crisis actually might have ended at that point, if it hadn't been for that very ... defection.... Whose is the burden of proof? The UN, US, or Iraq?