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.

Technology Stocks : Ascend Communications (ASND) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sepku who wrote (33992)	2/9/1998 12:09:00 AM
From: Tim Luke	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 61433

way off topic, Style or anyone: Do you have a theory why we did not finish the job? We must of known that if we let him live there would be future problems. What are the chances of Iraq having Nukes? This is all mind blowing to me if in fact he does have a nuclear bomb what's to stop him from using it if and when we attack? I think we know a very small amount of what is really going on over there and what weapons of mass destruction he has.

To: sepku who wrote (33992)	2/9/1998 12:14:00 AM
From: Sector Investor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 61433

<<in fact, I would have preferred Bush to have finished the job back in '90-'91; he should have supported the Kurdish revolt after the Gulf War, thus uniting the two factions against Saddam. This would have spared the innocent Iraqi people 7 years of grief...instead, the US appears to be a bully -- effectively encouraging heightened anti-west sentiment in the Mid-East.>> And that is really the crux of the matter. Turn down the road to Baghdad and Saddam would have fled within days. Set up a new regime and get on with life. Hunt Saddam down and charge him with war crimes and try him. Instead, we've still got the problem, but now without the backing of most of the world. I lay this squarely at Bush's feet.