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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kech who wrote (159487)	2/28/2006 5:28:03 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794016

<Interesting that you agree that Saddam had already surrendered and was breaking his agreement but you still are opposed to the US going in to enforce this agreement. > Where did you get that idea? Good luck with dredging back to before the war. You won't find that. I thought they were kidding themslves about what they'd achieve, but it always seemed a reasonable thing for them to do if they liked, though I didn't think it was the best way of spending my hard-earned tax money. A NUN formation would have been much better to do first. Get all the pieces in place and a sensible plan for AFTER any fighting. <So if they didn't destroy what was KNOWN to be there. And they actually had MORE than was KNOWN to be there. How do you then conclude that not finding it means that it WASN'T there?> Known knowns, unknown knowns, unknown unknowns, known unknowns, all very interesting but my judgment before the war and obviously right, was that it was a non-issue and not the real reason for the war [or the military intelligence was even more unintelligent than I thought]. Mqurice