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: Road Walker who wrote (182747)	2/16/2004 9:16:09 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575586

Ted Re... What did you expect these guys to say, "We have no worries about Iraq WMD". I expected them, as I expect GW, to tell the truth, as to what they expected. And AFAIK, they both told the truth as far as they knew it. For you guys, to claim that they knew Saddam had no weapons all alongs, defies credibility. For Bill to have known Saddam had no weapons, and then subjected Iraq to 8 yrs of sanctions, with estimates by Scott of 43,000 babies killed each yr, as a result of those sanctions, means Bill could be held partially responsible for over 320.000 Iraqi deaths, and also partially 9/11, as OBL blamed those sanctions, for part of his anger at the US. Political pressure was a successful part of what kept him in a box, and probably the reason he didn't build WMD. After 12 yrs of sanctions, the political pressure was growing to end sanctions. Scott, in his book, written before 9/11, by the way, said there were only 2 options left. Either go to war, and eliminate Saddam, or appease Saddam. After 9/11, appeasment wasn't an option; and Pollack agreed with that assestment. danielpipes.org amazon.com Both of these have been posted before. Read them, and tell me how you disagree with their assestment, keeping in mind, that the decision had to be made before we found out Saddam had no WMD.