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: epicure who wrote (10402)	5/10/2004 7:35:40 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

we'll talk about my long list of reasons for reaching the conclusion I did. Your long list of reasons, as well as mine, are TRUMPED by the reasons that UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspectors could not substantiate your assertion. You see, I'm not just making stuff up, or listening to pundits. I'm listening to the inspectors themselves and then applying their findings against the mandate outlined by the UNSC binding resolutions related to Iraq's disarmament. Had this been an investigation, requiring the inspectors to prove that Saddam had WMDs, it might have been a different issue with regard to my validity of my opinion. But it was an inspection, where Saddam's regime was obligated to fully and voluntarily disclose all of its WMD and related programs, as well as halting all further activities related to such. Thus, so long as the UNSCOM/UNMOVIC inspectors failed to have absolute confidence in the disarmament of Iraq, it was clear that Saddam was in violation of his obligations. Saddam had already been "convicted".. He was on "parole" and it was his obligation to convince the "parole board" (the UNSC and its inspectors) that he was in compliance with his parole. Fail to do that and he faced immediate execution of sentence. Hawk