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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mrknowitall who wrote (12380)	11/2/1998 5:24:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<This is not the choice of the US. It is the choice of Saddam to not live up to the terms of the surrender.>> This is very uncharacteristic Mr K. The US is not responsible? What can I say? The US has been blocking food and medicine from entering Iraq for many years now. The target is the deaths of millions of innocent villagers. The strategy to target the innocent people of Iraq to get to Saddam is outrageous, it is a failure, and it is the most abominable act committed by any person or group of persons this century. Saying Saddam could just surrender to stop is pointless. He has had years to surrender. He is not going to. We have numerous options at our command. The worst and most unjustifiable is to continue to target innocent villagers. If you want to continue to support the tactic that targets innocent villagers and not consider other options, ok. You want to position US government as helpless stop their own murderous behavior. Then you can put the blame on the deaths of the children on Saddam who wont comply. Abortionists are justified under the same arguement in supporting Infanticide because the US government wont come up with the money to fund the demands of the supporters of single parent households.