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: frankw1900 who wrote (100833)	6/9/2003 4:48:15 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 281500

The principal reason, in my view and I argued it here since the very start of my contributions to this board, was the nature of the Iraq regime. I've always said the possible ownership of WMDs is far less significant than the nature of the regime. Far less significant to whom? After all the twisting and turning is done, we are left with two pretty clear items. First: it is almost impossible, in America, to rally widespread popular support for a war in the absence of any credible threat posed by the party to be warred upon. If the administration had gone to war without convincing Americans that Iraq posed a real threat, the political consequences would have been severe. That's not meant to say that there were no other reasons for going to war. It's meant to point out that the single reason that the administration most needed to justify the war was a direct threat to the US. Second: the only way the administration could portray Iraq as a direct threat to the US was to emphasize Iraq's WMD capacity. Perhaps not coincidentally, this issue seems to have been the subject of considerable exaggeration. I'd say it's too early to be reaching conclusions, but don't those items raise any suspicions on your part?