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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (155763)	1/9/2005 8:38:57 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The whole point is - why did Saddam pay so much and act so guilty if he had nothing to hide? What he had to hide was--his relative impotence after Gulf War I. Bullies like to project strength, whatever the reality. And for someone in his position, the mirage of strength was worth a great deal to him. He wouldn't have been able to use the extra money to rebuild his military strength anyway with the world watching. That said, I admit I am just speculating, just as everyone else is (including you). Unless Saddam lives another 20 years and gets some sort of religious flash while sitting in prison, we will never really know.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (155763)	1/9/2005 9:03:45 PM
From: John Soileau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<Of course he did have stuff to hide, as was found on numerous occasions.>> Hey Nadine, happy new year. But let's be specific. EXACTLY what "stuff to hide" are you referring to? Yellow cake uranium from Nigeria? WMDs? Aluminum tubes? Mobile biolabs? The "Prague meeting" (which Cheney himself admitted was not sufficiently proven up)? Or did he have secret decoder rings? The best evidence is that it was his own pathetic military impotence that he was hiding (and badly, at that).