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: Sam who wrote (123939)	1/28/2004 8:39:58 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (4) of 281500

Some of the "anti-war" crowd believed Saddam had WMDs; it was the CIA who said that it was unlikely that he would use them unless he was invaded. Lots of the anti-war crowd argued it too, as they now conveniently forget. The most serious arguments (for me, at any rate) had to do with (a) the real enemy that we should focus on is Al Qaeda and (b) once Saddam was removed, there still would be no good way to leave or establish a situation which would be favorable to our interests. The most serious argument for me were, that (a) the belief that Al Qaeda is separate or separable from the general Middle East political swamp, esp. in our so-called friends Egypt and Saudi Arabia, was a severe misunderstanding, and (b) the Iraqi situation was terrible and degrading fast. The most likely outcome of doing nothing was an imminent American climb-down and a triumphant Saddam free of sanctions to pursue whatever programs he chose, with whatever French and Pakistani and North Korean aid he could get. Compared to that outcome (and the tremendous boost of confidence it would give Al Qaeda), the risks of war were worthwhile.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next