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 Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (182509)	2/12/2004 6:22:39 PM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1575867

Ten, re: No, it wasn't. Saddam wasn't being compliant, the inspections couldn't be conclusive one way or another, and the "oil-for-palaces" program was a smack in the face of U.N. humanitarianism. Being "comliant", "coundn't be conclusive", and "oil-for-palaces" are not legitimate reasons to overthrow and occupy, with US troops. Bush knew that, that's why he framed the argument as a threat to US soil. If we accept that with the new Bush doctrine, those three things are legitimate justifications to impose our political will through our military, then we will be very busy. John

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (182509)	2/12/2004 6:34:08 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575867

Ted, That's why we had weapon inspectors in Iraq.......to keep him honest. And it was working! No, it wasn't. Saddam wasn't being compliant, the inspections couldn't be conclusive one way or another, and the "oil-for-palaces" program was a smack in the face of U.N. humanitarianism. Was he compliant like a boy scout? No. Was he compliant? Yes. I am not sure what you think but Saddam is an adult and he was a leader of an Arab country........machismo runs strong in that culture. He was not about to jump to attention like a boy scout. No leader would in his position but then he had another thing going......he was living in a bad neighbhorhood. He couldn't afford to look weak. So my question............was this about getting compliance.....which we did; or getting Saddam to jump like a boy scout, and then once airborne, asking "how high"? Because if it were the latter, it wasn't about to happen. ted

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (182509)	2/12/2004 11:57:10 PM
From: Buckwheat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575867

I have to agree with Tenchusatsu. [No, it wasn't. Saddam wasn't being compliant, the inspections couldn't be conclusive one way or another, and the "oil-for-palaces" program was a smack in the face of U.N. humanitarianism.] In fact, I agree with all of the above. Saddam had years to account for his weapons and elected to thumb his nose at the UN instead. And the UN (being the dynamic, decisive organization that it is) did nothing. IRAQ was invaded for not providing full accountability of WMD and associated weapons. Not because someone convinced the world that it was a fact that he had them. Lack of accountability is scary. Any nation or group in the world could have been buying some of them. I doubt that full accountability could ever be established, but I would hope that a lot can be learned from some of the information that can be pieced together. Buck