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 Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Condor who wrote (75738)	2/19/2003 5:35:27 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Condor...how did this get into your post...it wasn't anything I said>>> I suggest that Saddam be be assassinated. He won't go forward after that. While I might agree with that, just go back through the links of our conversation, and you will see that it wasn't there. As to the rest: 1) We are not yet proof positive sure exactly what Iraq has or hasn't done to the US. BUT, there certainly are reasons the UN has sanctioned him/Iraq for the last 12 years, is there not? In these 12 years, he has grown stronger, and so has the potential damage he can do to the rest of the world. (See the defectors who have gotten out, and his 2 son-in-laws who did, and were foolish enough to go back, as well as Hamza, and others....) I'm sorry you felt that there was just plain "silly stuff" in the post. It is no more silly, than millions of people parading for 'anti-war' and having Saddam view it as a mandate for him to continue what he is doing. The last paragraph here was yours...I know you agree with it. You already said so, because you wrote it... However, I am again, curious how that sentence (see above) got into the mix.