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: michael97123 who wrote (77142)	2/24/2003 1:50:42 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

This type of circuitious reasoning is killing me. It is not only frustrating, it is followed by the swallowing of it by people who just blindly do not want the country protected. They will never see it that way, but they end up enjoying the benefits of protection, brought about over their furious objection, by the ones that do.

To: michael97123 who wrote (77142)	2/24/2003 2:03:29 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The latest UN Resolution proposed by the US, as reported by a TV station, consists basically of stating that Iraq did not comply with 1441 when given the one last chance to do so Looking at the facts: 1. Did Iraq permit un-monitored conversations with scientists . No 2. Did Iraq permit scientists to leave the country for interrogation No 3. Did Iraq identify or destroy missiles having a longer range than permitted. No 4. Did Iraq purchase more powerful engines or missiles of a larger diameter than permitted Yes 5. Did Iraq permit overflights by the U-2's in a timely manner No 6. Did Iraq provide any records or proof that 1000 tons of chemicals were destroyed? No So will the French and Germans stand up in the meeting and say that Iraq met the requirements of 1441.? Slick Willie might do it - depends upon the meaning of "met" Lets see how Chirac does it Sig