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: zonder who wrote (8205)	2/14/2003 2:44:50 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

I believe the point is that the very GUY the US supported (not only holding his hand, but with weapons etc) is the one they are attacking on the basis of him being "evil". Right. And although I don't buy into the whole 'good vs. evil' thing, I still have no issue with these actions. Given what (and how) we knew of/about Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeni in the late 1970's/early 1980's, I'd say that at that time, he was the better of two lousy choices. So it's OK to be friendly from an "integrity" point of view. See my post prior to this one re: integrity for my take on the potential meanings of that word. Like what, exactly? Last I'd heard Iraq had still not accounted for a large volume of previously reported biological weapons. And, there are the other issues that include supporting terror in the form of harboring Abu Nidal and paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, as well as - allegedly - providing training and sanctuary to al Qaeda operatives. Not to mention his continually not living up to the agreed upon stipulations of the post-Gulf War agreements? Don't let Clinton's shameless appeasement lead to you believe that these things are suddenly a point of contention. The latter was an issue all along, it's just now that the U.S. has an administration seeking to bring the complacency to an end. LPS5