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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (51133)	10/11/2002 12:44:00 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Odd way to put things -- a stringent inspection regime is the real aim, but they think it's impossible? As you say stringent inspections vs. regime change is a distinction without a difference in Iraq's case.

To: Ilaine who wrote (51133)	10/11/2002 4:35:55 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You think that "the entire purpose of the administration for the entire time has been to get a stringent inspection regime," and others who are equally wise and knowledgeable suspect different and more ambitious agendas. If Saddam is willing to allow completely unfettered access to all of Iraq, and allow the scientists and anybody else with knowlege of WMD to leave the country, along with their families, unhindered, that would do the trick, wouldn't it? Oh, and also to allow the UN to destroy everything it finds. If access is "unfettered," it's "completely unfettered" and it's "all of Iraq." "Allow the scientists and anybody else with knowledge of WMD to leave the country... unhindered..." translates to allowing those we need to question (and their families) to be leave during questioning, though you evoke a veritable evacuation. "to destroy anything it finds," sounds so much more fantastical than "to disarm or destroy WMD." You don't know the reason the administration is fixated on regime change asap, of course; you're guessing, and you're assuming that if the administration envisions other potential advantages to us in regime change in Iraq, they'd be sharing their hopes and dreams with the media. I don't think Saddam will honor the requirements above either but that doesn't necessarily imply we should invade immediately if the cost/benefit-risk/reward ratio improves if we proceed differently. If the agenda is other than simply the one you're guessing it is, then there may be good and pressing reasons not to wait.