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: Elsewhere who wrote (97526)	5/6/2003 8:10:36 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 281500

"There's a bigger problem with inspections, which is that for containment to have worked in Iraq, it would have had to have worked not just for six months or a year, but for the lifetime of this regime" Containment never worked... Oil was being shipped to Syria , Turkey , kickbacks, money never getting to the Iraq people. How would inspections contain wmd being moved across the Syria border etc.. All we hear is how long the border is and the difficulty to block.. Syria was not going to block the border or Jordan.

To: Elsewhere who wrote (97526)	5/6/2003 11:47:02 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Failure to Find Saddam Proves He Never Existed (2003-05-03) -- Six weeks after the invasion of Iraq, Pentagon officials are quietly beginning to acknowledge that their failure to find Saddam Hussein may be proof that the Iraqi leader never existed. "We hate to admit it," said one unnamed official, "One of our main reasons for going in there was regime change. You know...overthrow a brutal dictator who tortured his own people. But at this point, we're not sure there ever was a Saddam Hussein. After all, if we don't have him dead or alive...who's to say?" The military official said that the statues, murals and videos of Saddam Hussein are "circumstantial evidence which don't prove anything." ... scrappleface.com :-)

To: Elsewhere who wrote (97526)	5/6/2003 1:47:47 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<<Why was the administration seemingly intent on war at this time--was it for politics, that it wanted to avoid a war during next year's election season?>>> Very simple, ir had to be done at some time, and there was no better time to picture. Res 1441 was in place, the military was ready, if not done in spring it would have to wait a year, and could prevent another year of work on WMD's by Saddam . 911 was fresh in our memories to provide the political/citizens support Nothing to do with an election Sig

To: Elsewhere who wrote (97526)	5/6/2003 8:16:55 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

In The Threatening Storm, you make the point that Saddam was not close to making a nuclear weapon. Was the war rushed? [Pollack] What we knew about Saddam's thinking was that he wanted nuclear weapons because he believed that once he had nuclear weapons, he would be able to re-embark on his program of expansion and dominance in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region. I always felt that the threat from Iraq was not an imminent one--this was an area where I parted company from the Bush administration, because I didn't believe that Saddam had nuclear weapons, and I believed that he was still years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. It's not talked about much but did not the Iraq threat become imminent once N Korea announced it's plutonium manufacturing intention? Korea already sells weapons into the ME. Who would be the first customer for a bomb? There had to be a lot of deciding factors for invasion sooner rather than later, but I can't believe this wasn't one of them.