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: Hawkmoon who wrote (100619)	6/8/2003 1:54:10 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "This didn't have to be this way.. S. Africa dismantled it's WMD program voluntarily and no one invaded them." Uh, the facts are that Iraq did destroy its WMDs, and did get invaded. *Duty, honor and country are what are important, my friend, and they are more important than finding excuses to save the political life of a liar.* Do you know what "honor" means? Of course you do. It means that if you tell someone that to avoid an invasion they must disarm, then if they disarm you must not invade them. That's the honor that Bush broke, and I can no longer include him as a patriot. He does not deserve to lead a country based on duty, honor and country. -- Carl

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (100619)	6/8/2003 11:32:08 AM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

If you could, please provide a link to such comments by Rummy.. On ABC's This Week, March 3, 2003, Rumsfeld said, "We know where they (WMD) are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north of it." (Google that phrase and see for yourself...the links at ABC News and at MSNBC no longer work, but that's another issue for another time). This didn't have to be this way.. S. Africa dismantled it's WMD program voluntarily and no one invaded them. No argument here that Saddam didn't contribute to the situation. It all requires that we understand the "sources and methods" by which the intel was collected. It would seem that our inside source was a muckety-muck within Iraq's high command.. Thus, relatively high credibility is normally attached to such information. Seems that Chalabi was the prime source, and he hadn't been in Iraq in decades. "High credibility" seems to have been, in reality, more of a desire on the administration's part to support pre-conceived notions than anything. It really matters not if we knew where the weapons were or not, or whether our intelligence about their location was faulty. It matters because the president and his senior staff stated unequivocally that we DID know. The only way to overlook the hype and exaggerations we heard from administration members pre-war, is to believe that the ends justify the means.