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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gary Ng who wrote (68361)	3/7/2003 2:35:26 PM
From: JSwanson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Except that such case has not been convincingly presented, at least that is what I see in UN. Then why did the UN affirm all the previous resolutions regarding this situation? Why did they just say enough is enough we don't think Saddam is a threat anymore? Saddam has invaded neighboring nations on more than one occasion, has used WMD on his own people, has kill those that disagree with him, has funded the attempted assassination of a US president. You honestly think that Saddam is not a threat to the Iraqi people, to the Middle Eastern region and ultimately the world? The case was presented in UN resolution 687 and Saddam's compliance to this resolution was the basis for the cease fire in the Gulf War. Since then Saddam was continually lied about his weapons programs. How many final chances to we give Saddam to comply the the cease fire resolution? Bush is attempting to enforce the resolutionS the UN passed over the past 10 or so years and he is considered to be like Hitler and Saddam, despite all of his documented atrocities, is considered the victim. That amazes me.