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 (102030)	6/19/2003 12:56:20 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Just love the shouting with all the bolding. And a good morning to you, Hawk. If I understand the first part of this post, it's that you are certain the Iraqis had wmds, had used the period after 98 to restart their programs, and were such an imminent threat to the US we had to attack this past spring rather than wait for the completion of the UN inspection cycle. And you are certain despite the inadequacies, for whatever reasons, of American intelligence, which could not find strong evidence to that effect. If that's a reasonably accurate picture of your argument, it raises the question of just how you knew this. I'm willing to give you the case, because I also believe it, that there were stores of such in 98. But as to what happened to that and what the Iraqis did in the interim, that's both the basis for the Bush argument and where the intelligence, best I can tell, gets genuinely murky. And not able to support an argument for an invasion for preventive reasons. Thus, to put my point a bit more sharply, the mere presence of wmds in Iraq will not constitute an argument for the invasion. They have to find evidence that there was sufficient and in sufficiently weaponized form to constitute an imminent threat. Thus, justifying a spring invasion rather than wait for the inspections to be completed.