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 : Support the French! Viva Democracy! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (451)	3/24/2003 10:25:39 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 7832

Iraq was not our major problem. It is now... And you'd better get used to it because it's too late now.. What do you want to do.. Quit? Throw Saddam a pillow and tell him "nightie nite, sleep tight" and tuck him in?? Or are you just one of those people who would sell out your own soldiers by providing aid and comfort to the enemy?? Should we worry about your "fraggin" the local recruiting office?? Hawk@haveyounoshame?

To: epicure who wrote (451)	3/25/2003 9:03:40 AM
From: JSwanson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7832

12 years of doing nothing doesn't seem like a reasonable pretext for war (to me). The world agrees that he has not lived up to prior resolutions and in fact continued to build his WMD programs. You have obviously not read the Sec Council Resolutions pertaining to Iraq's (ie Saddam's) WMD programs. You might want to read some of it: caabu.org From 1441: Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, What good is a UN resolution if the UN doesn't back the language of the resolution with the force promised in the resolution? It does no good. It makes the Security Council impotent. Do you think Saddam takes the UN seriously. The only times he has grudgingly complied in the past is when the US forced him to the by promising military force. Further, left unchecked, Saddam WOULD have continued his quest for WMD and he WOULD have used them. It is not reasonable to wait for a lunatic to have the WMD before you decide to act on him. The potential loss of life from the deployment of a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon, even probability weighted, is much to great. I think we could have waited. For what? Saddam is the one he lied to the world, oppressed that majority of the Iraqi population. Had he complied with the original resolution, there would have been zero attacks after the Gulf War and the economic sanctions would have been lifted earlier and to a greater degree. Saddam created this, not Clinton or Bush.