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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (75153)	2/18/2003 11:19:23 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Containment of Iraq has been a subject discussed here almost ad nauseum. What does not appear contested is the fact that containment as a tactic has deteriorated to a failure point over the past 3 or more years. Containment consists of two aspects, namely, sanctions and inspections. Sanctions were designed to keep Saddam from having the financial resources to develop WMDs. Sanctions are now a joke as Saddam has found ways to evade them. He is now smuggling oil worth billions, making a mockery of them. He now has the money to aggressively buy and develop WMDs. Inspections are the second prong of containment. Since 1996 until recently, inspections have been non-existent. To suggest that WMDs can be found easily in view of the time Saddam has had to hide them is a sick joke. The first Blix report is a testament to their failure. I've read somewhere that a successful inspections program will take years to complete, which makes them not a viable option. Any containment folks out there wish to dispute these points? Be my guest. The argument that Saddam is not a threat can be answered quite simply. Why does want nukes and other WMDs in the first place? Self-defense? Please.