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: Neocon who wrote (101015)	6/10/2003 9:47:34 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Neocon; Re: "No one said it was a bad thesis. In fact, it was a respectable piece of work." The thesis was 7 years old. The British dossier claimed that this was the latest evidence they had that proved that Iraq still had WMDs. That was a lie, and Blair's government has already apologized for it. Re: "So far, the matter has been closer to the predictions of the Administration than someone like you." The administration was wrong (and I was right) about the following things: (1) An attack on Iraq would involve more than 100,000 troops. (2) The Iraqi soldiers would fight back, but they would be quickly defeated. (3) The real problem would be the occupation of the country after the war. (4) The Turks would not allow an invasion of Iraq from their territory. (5) The Iraqis would not greet us with flowers and parades. (6) Saddam would allow inspectors into Iraq and give them free rein to search for WMDs. I was wrong when I believed that the administration wouldn't actually invade Iraq, but that mistake is now costing them big time. -- Carl