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 : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. T. who wrote (2458)	1/21/2003 12:36:04 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 15987

Many of the scientists that are on the UN inspectors' list are missing, so if they've disappeared without Iraq being able to account for their whereabouts, isn't that too noncompliance. REALLY a good question E.T.!!! Wonder if any of the media will ask that question?

To: E. T. who wrote (2458)	1/21/2003 6:19:25 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Isn't it noncompliance when Iraq doesn't account for WMD and related material that previous inspectors confirmed the presence of? I am not sure what exactly it is from a legal point of view, but Blix does not seem to consider it a "smoking gun". Many of the scientists that are on the UN inspectors' list are missing, so if they've disappeared without Iraq being able to account for their whereabouts, isn't that too noncompliance. Do you expect Saddam to play babysitter to the scientists of a decade ago, who might have run off towards the sunset for a better future, died, or who knows what? To answer your question, no, some missing scientists are not non-compliance with UN resolutions. And besides, doesn't Hussein sponsor terrorism outside of Iraq. Do you know something the rest of us don't? Because, to the best of my knowledge, no such proof exists. Bush administration tried to show a relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda and failed quite spectacularly. Or do you believe he doesn't do that kind of stuff. I don't know. All I know is that there does not seem to be any serious allegation, with proofs and stuff, just some finger-pointing which has more than a passing resemblance to trying to find an excuse for an invasion. Syria is a terrorist sponsor. This is quite well documented over many years. I don't see anyone attacking Syria, do you? Now why do you think that may be? Ireland is a terrorist sponsor state. I don't see anyone invading them, either... Oh and by the way, did you know that most of IRA's financing came from the Irish in America? Does that not make the US a terrorist sponsor state? Would you advocate the UK invading (or trying to! <smile>) the US?