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: runes who wrote (70689)	10/10/2003 1:47:41 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

I wrote a longish reply which I accidentally erased. Argh :-) Anyway, what I was wanted to say in short was: 1. That, yes, there ARE credible sources (like those in a position to research it on the ground) and others (bloggers, etc) 2. Not assigning Fred's argument to you, just trying to say that knowledge of Saddam's mortality rate in Iraq was not necessary to take sides on this debate of whether Iraq should or legally could be invaded. 3. Re "infant mortality in Iraq" - Sorry but no. Take a look at this: "Wednesday, 12 August 1999: The first surveys since 1991 of child and maternal mortality in Iraq reveal that in the heavily-populated southern and central parts of the country, children under five are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago. UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said the findings reveal an ongoing humanitarian emergency." unicef.org [The link to the report itself is available on the site (underlined here)] I cannot agree with you that this finding might have anything to do with a lower birth rate. 4. I agree with you as to the rest