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: aladin who wrote (105892)	7/16/2003 11:34:46 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Partisans who dislike the administration are hoping for number 2. If number 1 or 3 occurred and is documented a lot of those Partisans will look pretty foolish Nah, partisans are immune to looking foolish. After all, the same people who are hoping the administration never finds any WMDs were the ones arguing before the war that Saddam would use WMDs on our troops and the war would create a humanitarian catastrophe with millions of refugees. Seen anybody call them on it?

To: aladin who wrote (105892)	7/17/2003 5:09:19 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

Your options are lucid, but notice that you did not treat the three the same way -- you had to embellish the third option with an editorial "they were destroyed, but Saddam could not admit that because he would lose face - or worse - he needed the bluster". You could bring yourself not have an option that simply said he destroyed them and dismantled the programs during the era of UN inspections, even though this is the most likely scenario. If it is the case, the war was, as our former allies believed, entirely pointless. But all of this is secondary to the larger issue of US foreign policy and the lengths to which the Administration will go to conjure up a phony pretext to substantiate the need for preemptive war.