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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (99455)	5/30/2003 8:47:36 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Post links, if you want. The rationale was not that Saddam was about to attack anyone. It had to do with the threat of sharing WMDs with terrorists, and with the longer term regional threat, if the United States could be driven out of the area and he could pressure his oil- rich neighbors. The argument between the United States and the UN was not that Saddam was not a threat, but whether the inspection regime sufficed to address it. The United States noted the foot- draggin, and the evident fact that only its threats brought any real cooperation, and argued that Saddam was determined to drag things out indefinitely, waiting for the expense and frustration of US deployment, coupled with the threat of terrorist attack, to eliminate pressure eventually. Therefore, it called for closure.