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: Win Smith who wrote (101292)	6/12/2003 3:43:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It requires a certain amount of evidence. Mainly the known fact that there was a large amount of WMD in Iraq and that Saddam made a big effort (eventually at the cost of his regime) to stop information about WMD from being found out. He could have destroyed them in 2002 like I think Bilow guessed but it makes no sense to theorize that they where all or almost all destroyed by 1998. If he did destroy them in 2002 without providing evidence of the destruction then he was still not in compliance with the cease fire agreements. Also it seems rather mad as doing so without letting it known that he was doing so would not stop the external pressure on his regime. The only reason for Saddam to comply would be to stave off the threat of invasion or to stop the sanctions, but without showing that he was complying he would do neither. I doubt he would through away a chance to stay in power in order to embarrass the Bush administration as much as he might dislike them. Tim