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: Peter Dierks who wrote (205138)	10/5/2004 2:48:56 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574001

Haven't you ever belonged to an organization where you didn't like some of the people? Where you had differing views and were glad you weren't friends? Yes. But I did not rush out and try to appoint the organization as my nanny. No one including Kerry is suggesting the UN be our nanny nor anything close to that. You'll have to show me who the credible source is. Saddam was one of the major benefactors of the corruption. And he sunk his share of the loot into palaces and fast cars, and not al Qa'ida. The first place I saw the charge was n WSJ. They don't allow easy access. Here is another reference, less credible, but a reference. freerepublic.com; Frankly, I don't pay too much attention to the freerepublic, newsmax and other similiar sites. They rely more on innuendo than fact. In that article you linked me to, they say there is a "possibility" that Saddam gave money to al Qa'ida. The truth is Saddam did not like Osama.........they couldn't be more different than a GOPer and a Dem, and disliked each other even more. The reality is that Saddam had money stashed all over the world as well as in Iraq. The truth is Saddam sunk his stash into palaces and fast cars and boats. The likelihood of him helping al Qa'ida is slim to none. However, there is an important point to me made here.....sites like freerepublic promote their spin in order to give the WH more credibility and to validate WH mistruths. In reality, all they do is confuse the public at a time when confusion is the last thing we need. My understanding was that Annon worked closely with the Security Council to get the weapon inspectors back into Iraq. You normally post lucid thoughts. The offer to allow weapons inspectors back in came after the US had amassed troops on the borders. Draw the only conclusion possible. Even if Kofi wanted them back in, it may have been greed (Oil4food), arrogance (what WMDs) other reasons for his actions. Yes, I should have said under pressure by the US. But again, Annan needs the support of a Sec. Council member before he can make a case that will stick.