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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Win Lose or Draw : Be A Steve, Make A Call -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win-Lose-Draw who wrote (5855)	3/10/2003 4:59:04 PM
From: Softechie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11447

Iraq drone is from US...US Envoy: No UN Vote -3: Questions About Drones Expected 10 Mar 16:50 U.K. Ambassador to the U.N. Jeremy Greenstock said he had no instructions from his government to change the wording of the resolution but discussions are still going on and "we are glad to be part" of those discussions. Greenstock said he understood that at Monday's council meeting the U.S. would ask questions about unmanned Iraqi aircraft mentioned by chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix in a written report filed late Friday but not mentioned in his oral presentation earlier to the Council earlier that day. -By Larry McCoy, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4378; hbsglobaldesk (END) Dow Jones Newswires 03-10-03 1650ET

To: Win-Lose-Draw who wrote (5855)	3/10/2003 5:14:39 PM
From: nsumir81	Respond to of 11447

ST gain? eom

To: Win-Lose-Draw who wrote (5855)	3/10/2003 5:21:46 PM
From: augieboo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11447

[1] many industrial chemicals are "dual use." Examples: High nitrogen fertilizer + diesel fuel + heat (use a double boiler to avoid blowing yourself up) = low grade plastic explosive. Insecticides & Nerve gas have the same basic ingredients. Bio-drugs & Bio-weapons use many of the same processes & ingredients. [2] The cold war forced U.S. policy makers to make a lot of ugly choices. During the Iran-Iraq war it was believed in Washington that preventing the Iranians from winning was important enough so that we should look the other way when Saddam used WMD against Iranian "human wave" attacks. I don't know if this assessment was correct, but I do remember that even in my leftist youth I was not particularly keen on the idea of Iran controlling Iraq -- from which it could spread its Islamic revolution to Saudi Arabia & the Gulf States. (Obviously the joke turned out to be on us in re Islamic revolutionaries but hindsight is always 20-20.) Anyhow, the folks who actually had to make the decision thought that keeping Iran out of Iraq was more important that Saddam's use of WMD against Iranian troops. I don't know whether the other alternative, i.e., direct military support to Iraq, was ever studied or what. I hope so, but who knows? Apparently, once Saddam saw that the US would acquiesce in his use of WMD against the Iranians he figured he could just use them at will. Given the proverbial inch he took the proverbial mile. Which is precisely why the UN inspection crappola cannot work. He has been given inches and taking miles for twelve years now. There is no way he is going to give up his quest for WMD until we force him to militarily. Sure, you can argue that we created the monster, so what moral ground do we have to be critical? I would readily concede that we at minimum participated in creating the monster. I would then argue that because we helped to create the monster we are obligated to help destroy it.