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: Bilow who wrote (100569)	6/7/2003 3:13:51 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

When speculating about likely enemy behavior, it is generally a good idea to assume that your enemy is at least semi-rational and semi-competent and will behave in ways that will benefit himself. Assuming that he is 100% bluster and will collapse without a fight is generally not a smart idea. As for those WMD programs, he had them all right. UNMOVIC knew he had them, and tracked the imports. Now, maybe it will turn out that Saddam really did decide to toss the actual weapons before the war and keep lying about it to the UN to up the odds he would be invaded. Or, maybe his generals made that decision for him. Would have been pretty stupid for anybody to proceed on that working assumption, though. And from where I sit, David Warren's predictions are holding up far better than your Stalingrad-on-the-Tigris ones. Or your absolute predictions that there would be no war because "Bush is in idiot".