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.

Pastimes : Dan Rather: Questions He Should Have Asked Saddam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (40)	2/27/2003 6:29:11 PM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74

We're going to get more terrorism if we don't too. Particularly if we don't at this point. Backing down now shows trhat Uncle Sam can be intimidated and bluffed. I'm not talking about backing down. Finding a peaceful solution is not backing down. A peaceful solution certainly won't lead to more terrorism either, but killing a bunch of innocent Iraqis might. If Saddam is forced into exile or contained by a strict inspections regime, we will have achieved our goals of destroying his capability to give WMD to terrorists. It seems like he's pretty contained right now. He didn't give WMD to terrorist since the last Gulf War as far as we know. With UN inspectors all over the place, it's doubtful he will develop WMD or give them to terrorists in the future. I think this whole WMD issue is just being used as a cover to seize Iraq's oil. That's how I see it. That's probably why there will ultimately be a war with Iraq. The real objective hasn't been achieved yet. ~JMHO~