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: KonKilo who wrote (104487)	7/10/2003 5:23:08 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Let's cut to the chase. George II, Rumsfeld, Tony and co were full of it. There weren't any weapons of mass destruction. Now they are blathering on about finding evidence of weapons of mass destruction programmes. Which is quite a different thing from weapons so ready that soldiers need to shout "Gas Gas Gas" and don their masks. It seems that Scott Ritter and Saddam Hussein had higher levels of credibility than Tony Blair and King George II. It was obvious at the time that Yeti and BigFoot were not in town. It's now laughable listening to the serious questioning about weapons of mass destruction with suggestions that Saddam destroyed or hid them immediately before the invasion. Have those saying that lost their minds? Saddam was being shot at, targeted by Special Forces spies and didn't have time to hide $800 million or so in cash, let alone truckloads of dirty great weapons of mass destruction not to mention delivery systems for them [like great big monstrous guns or rocket launchers or something]. There weren't any weapons of mass destruction. Nor were there any programmes for weapons of mass destruction. Nor would such have been especially useful anyway unless he could get hold of nukes. Nor would it be in his interests to blow up Americans as that would precipitate a dirty great big attack, which is what he got. That wasn't a lot of fun for him [well, it perhaps was, but he'd have preferred to avoid it]. Nor was he allied with Osama, who was out to get him. Osama did not like Saddam's semi-secular regime with images of Saddam all over the place and palaces to Saddam's glory and murderous suppression of the Shites and Kurds and anyone else including any uppity Mullahs who crossed his path. But of course there is a common enemy now, so they'll work in parallel if not directly in mutual support. The Taleban didn't like images. They knocked down the big Buddhas and would have frowned on Saddam's idolatry and ubiquitous imagery and statuary. It's laughable that Saddam would bother destroying WMDs in the immediate time before the invasion. If there were truckloads of WMDs, it wouldn't make any difference to his outcome. By agreeing destruction of some rockets in the year or so before the invasion, he was hoping to forestall invasion. He knew they weren't much use anyway, so it was better to have the UN supervise a few rockets being pulled apart than having them be useless in a conflict with the USA anyway. He probably knew there was going to be an invasion anyway, but figured there was a chance that continued rocket destruction would gain some UN Brownie Points sufficient to keep the drooling USA off his throat. They weren't WMD's but they did have a little bit more range [allegedly anyway] than was allowed. Mqurice

To: KonKilo who wrote (104487)	7/10/2003 10:10:54 AM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 281500

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light - through the prism of our experience on 9/11," he said. Well there's a great example of selective perception for all of us to remember as we continue on our discourse. Rumsfeld always seem to be the one who quietly drops the turd in the punch bowl. (His quiet admission that "No WMDS would probably be found" started things off last month.) Now with this official testimony in front of congress it lets every Reporter worth his salt get down to some serious GOOGELING to come up with the bogus, exaggerated quotes of BUsh, Cheney, COndi, Wolfie and Perle. In many, many cases they told us they had New Intelligence. Remember the run up to the "Smoking gun" Powell was suppossed to deliver to the UN on Feb. 5th? The sad thing is that much of this information was publically available and many doubted the hype of this Administration. It's why so many demonstrated. It's why so many were against the Invasion and Occupation. It's why many found "Preemptive War" under this pResident an anathema. It depended on the selective perception of a narrow group of ideological extremists. Transcripts are a wonderful, eh terrible things depending on what you said. Rascal @patientinformedlogicalpatriot.com