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: JohnM who wrote (101989)	6/18/2003 10:53:34 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Much of the rest of the time they argued that the threat was imminent, couldn't wait until next fall, stop the inspections, etc. Blair has apparently been caught with the 45 minutes to launch argument. And can anyone have been able to prove that it wasn't? After all, it's not like US intelligence assets in Iraq were available. Saddam's brutal security apparatus made it nearly impossible for US intelligence to retain quality and trustworthy HUMINT agents. Any leak of information, or perception of a spy, would lead to mass eliminations of anyone potentially acting in such a capacity. And I can say FIRSTHAND that ever since Jimmie Carter and Stansfield Turner, the CIA/DIA's HUMINT capacities have been drastically cut.. And that which wasn't cut, was politically neutered, afraid to carry out high-risk operations that might go wrong. All we've had is SIGINT/IMINT/MASINT, and second hand intel from allies, to draw our conclusions from. But those forms of intelligence are easily decieved since counter-intelligence activities on the part of Iraq were highly effective and creative. We needed agents on the ground, always a high-risk affair that often gets agents (sometimes American) killed. But let's take a look at what the Democratic Leadership council stated about the likelihood of WMDs' being Iraq: ndol.org The current furor over the failure so far to find evidence of a massive weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program in Iraq is raising a hitherto taboo subject in the mainstream media: the credibility of George W. Bush and his administration. There's a rich irony in this development. Of all the occasions on which the administration might be called to task for deliberate evasion of the facts, the WMD issue is among the weakest cases. If the Bush administration was wrong about Saddam's WMD program, so, too, was just about everybody else, including U.N. inspectors, the French, the Germans, the Russians, and the Chinese, all of whom accepted prior evidence of such a program as beyond doubt. We'll wait to see what turns up in Iraq, and what turns up in Congressional Intelligence Committee inquiries about the information the administration acted upon. But we think you could probably make a much better case that the administration deliberately exaggerated scant evidence of connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. As for all the talk of violations of UNSC resolutions, that's a justification for invading Israel. Why doesn't seem likely at the moment. NO THAT'S NOT!!!!!!!!! John, John, John... HOW MANY TIMES do I have to say it.. NO UNSC RESOLUTIONS PERTAINING TO ISRAEL ARE BINDING!! They fall under CHAPTER VI of the UN Charter. ALL UNSC RESOLUTIONS AGAINST IRAQ FALL UNDER CHAPTER VII, AND THUS, ARE BINDING. Furthermore, all UNSC resolutions involving Israel INCLUDE encouraging the parties in conflict to work towards peaceful resolutions to their problems. Chapter VI is about arbitration and negotiation, encouraging peaceful solutions to problems. But Chapter VII is about DEMANDING resolutions.. Resolutions that are enforceable and binding on the designated party. And if you doubt me, then rely upon the UN for your information. Do you see Israel listed in the following link?: un.org Hawk