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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (138443)	6/30/2004 12:05:04 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There is no evidence that Saddam had a track record with 9/11 or AQ... Who trained in Salman Pak? What were Abu Nidal and Zarqawi doing in Baghdad? Who funded Ansar al Islam? Who funded the Palestinian suicide bombers? Who tried to assassinate GHW Bush? The best you can say about it is that Saddam was not that close with AQ, preferring terrorists he felt he had more control over. But that is hardly reassuring from the US' point of view. Not to mention Saddam's track record of mass murder, using chemical weapons on both soldiers and civilians, etc. With most leaders in the world, even dictators, you know they would hesitate before killing 100,000 people at a go. With Saddam, you know he wouldn't hesitate because he didn't hesitate in 1988 and 1991. Iraqis were practically starving and the oil revenue we defined how much the oil revenue could be I guess you didn't notice the Oil-for-Food scandal, a little scheme whereby Saddam paid billions in bribes with the oil money so he could take what he pleased off the top to build weapons and palaces. Naturally the Iraqis starved, that too was a benefit to Saddam - all those dead baby parades. It helped his campaign to end the sanctions. Not to mention how much money Saddam was going to have, and soon, when the crumbling sanctions collapsed altogether.