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: Buckwheat who wrote (182527)	2/13/2004 12:28:24 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575980

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. If Saddam was not being compliant, how did the weapon inspectors get into the country in 2002 and begin their inspections? 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. By 1998, the weapon inspectors had accounted for and destroyed at least 95% of Saddam's WMD. They were not sure about the other 5% because some of Saddam's record keeping was poor. As it turns out, all the WMD had been destroyed. We've wasted $300 billion and suffered the loss of over 500 Americans to prove the same point the weapon inspectors could have proven for far less loss. You do the math!