Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

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

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: carranza2 who wrote (69931)	1/29/2003 3:13:12 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (2) of 281500

C2, I think it is clear from the message that the administration has more information than it feels comfortable revealing publicly. He did state that Powell will disclose detailed info to the SC next week. What could be the reason? 1) Protecting the sources 2) Protecting the technology used 3) Clear evidence that the Weapons Inspectors have been compromised 4) Clear evidence that certain allies have been compromised 5) All of the above 6) None of the above For the folks who will immediately respond on points 3&4 - get real, it was clearly shown that some inspectors were bribed and some were compromised in the '90's - why would Saddam not try that now? It would be easy to test - give certain information to the Inspectors and watch the sites closely. If trucks arrive suddenly and leave before the inspectors arrive -> clear evidence. Why give the SC members time to respond to such evidence? Especially if one or more members have nationals who are complicit in the leaks? Better to present and confront privately - and earn a vote. John

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next