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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (6785)	2/10/2004 1:37:28 PM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

"And let's assume that, egomanical fool that he was, he one day unleashed them on the US troops in Kuwait and Saudia Arabia and on Israel, killing tens or hundereds of thousands of our troops and local citizens and starting a pandemic of smallpox and other horrible diseases." That would have been bad.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (6785)	2/10/2004 2:51:43 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Saddam hadn't used any WMDs in the last dozen years so why did the attack have to happen when it did, and why did the plans never change (except for Turkey's non-participation) from the first warning to the last bomb? This is not the actions of an administration reluctantly thrown into war by necessity. What is known is that in all of Iraq's oil and oil service contracts there was not a single mention of Halliburton, Bechtel, or Carlyle (or any other U.S. company). judicialwatch.org The only way the Americans were going to get a piece of that oil action would be if they took it. If Saddam had weapons, like Korea, he would never have been attacked. Instead Iraq was mugged because they were weak and had more potential for wealth than weapons. TP