SI
SI
discoversearch

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
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Hawkmoon who wrote (13421)12/9/2001 3:39:14 PM
From: MulhollandDrive  Read Replies (3) of 281500
 
I agree with you that the US does not necessarily "need" the smoking gun from the perspective of asserting it's military toward Iraq.

The violations of the armistice alone are sufficient. The problem with that is imo...."timeliness". Had we initiated our attack at the time when Saddam ousted the inspectors, we probably would have better international support (assuming the military attack is made solely on that basis).
As you say, it may be difficult to be "sold" several years after the fact.

The smoking gun of financial ties to the terrorist network would be most beneficial in keeping the alliance "in line".
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News