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 (159998)	4/1/2005 10:25:53 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

So what you are saying is that there were no legitimate transactions made under the oil for food program? That everyone involved was getting kickbacks? What percentage of the total oil for food contracts were illegal? And what percentage of the over all program dollar wise was involved? I know there were some abuses, but you make it sound as if every transaction involved a bribe. As for WMD, certainly there was a suspicion that Saddam may have WMD. Some intelligence pointed in the direction of WMD and some pointed in the direction of no WMD. Saddam did not want his enemy, Iran to know that he did not have WMD, lest they perceive him as weak, which he was, and attack. So he led a disinformation campaign with that regard. On the other hand he wanted to end the sanctions, and eliminating WMD was a condition for that. So he was stuck with presenting two images. Regardless, the weapons inspectors were allowed into the country, and they should have been allowed to do their job. And Bush needed to ratchet up the pressure on Saddam to respect human rights, and to allow free and fair elections. I wrote to Bush advising him of this tactic, so I know he was aware of the idea. And General Powell also advised Bush to use the diplomatic road to the fullest extent. Instead we find ourselves in a guerilla war, in a divided country where civil war will likely break out if we were to leave. The term Iraqi and insurgent are being miss used. Iraqi is generally meant to mean Shia when our media reports. Insurgent generally means Sunni. Our media has obfuscated this fact. You talk about open and transparent governments, but our government has not been transparent on many things. We don't know what is going on in Iraq. It's very dangerous there. Western reporters cannot go anywhere with out an armed guard...and this is in the green zone. There are no more embedded reporters. We do not have a clear picture of what happened in Fallujah, nor do we know what is going on there now. In fact this administration is anything but transparent. The most secretive and closed adminstration this country has ever seen. Now if you're concerned about Saddam being non transparent, when will you begin to ask why this administration is so secretive? Orca