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: Dayuhan who wrote (105907)	7/16/2003 11:48:52 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<Perhaps it needs to be repeated, once more: the relevant issue here is not whether Saddam did or did not have WMD. The issue is whether the level of threat posed by Saddam was deliberately exaggerated. This question will not be answered by the discovery or non-discovery of WMD; it is just a bit more complicated than that. >> Looking at the threats posed by 911, the major one was economic, with cost of replacing WTC at $100 bil, plus insurance costs, loss of airline traffic , resort attendance, and trade. Fear of terrorism existed and needed to be overcome.Lost lives. When Iraq stopped producing oil in one year the price of oil tripled. And if that happened again we would be in deeper trouble. I have trouble with the term "imminent treat", but you dont accomplish much talking about "long-term" threats. Congress can always plan to handle those next year. Saddam was making a mess of his oil contracts ( illegal under UN rules), asking for billions in advance to let other countries tap the new fields, letting the wells and pipelines deteriorate. And therefore rapidly becoming an economic threat to the US and others. The time was right., the people were incensed, the iron was hot. Sig

To: Dayuhan who wrote (105907)	7/17/2003 2:14:16 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Perhaps it needs to be repeated, once more: the relevant issue here is not whether Saddam did or did not have WMD. The issue is whether the level of threat posed by Saddam was deliberately exaggerated. This question will not be answered by the discovery or non-discovery of WMD; it is just a bit more complicated than that. That is indeed the issue - in the sense of the brouhaha that the Dems are using to beat up on the administration right now. However, it's a damn silly issue in any terms but those of partisan politics, because its underlying assumption - that Saddam was no threat to anybody, and the fact that WMDs haven't been found yet proves it - is unlikely to the point of absurdity. Moreover, it distracts attention from really important questions, like "what the #$%^@! happened to those damn WMDs and where is Saddam and does he have them and what does he intend to do with them? What do you mean, you don't know?!" As Stratfor pointed out, there are only three possibilities: 1. The WMDs never existed. Obviously not true. Just ask the survivors of Halabja. 2. The WMDs did exist, but Saddam destroyed them in secret while making everybody believe he still had them. Implausible. Even for Saddam this would be weird. Why would he pay all the cost of the programs with none of the benefit? 3. The WMDs still exist. Once 1 and 2 are eliminated, this is the only option you are left with, In which case, the questions where the $&%$#@ are they and who has them? become rather urgent.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (105907)	7/17/2003 5:15:52 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

Perhaps it needs to be repeated, once more: the relevant issue here is not whether Saddam did or did not have WMD. The issue is whether the level of threat posed by Saddam was deliberately exaggerated. That and if removing the potential threat from Saddam, combined with the benefits of removing the Baathist tyranny from Iraq are enough to justify the costs and risks created by the war. Tim

To: Dayuhan who wrote (105907)	7/18/2003 1:40:16 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

The issue is did Saddam have a WMD program, IMO? Mr. Kay said he is convinced now they did have WMD, but they still have about 6 months more work to do before all the documents are completely gone through. Most people who are knowledgeable about the Iraq situation, seem to be in agreement (we have seen ample news releases, including those from the UN)....he did have them as late as 1998, and they had/have NO evidence any were destroyed, other than what the US actually destroyed before and during the war. I believe your question: "The issue is whether the level of threat posed by Saddam was deliberately exaggerated." ....will be answered when all the documents and the info from all Saddam's scientists, etc has been analyzed. IMO, I don't believe we will find it was exaggerated. In fact, I think we will see just where many of these items went, and to what countries and what people. Perhaps it needs to be repeated, once more: the relevant issue here is not whether Saddam did or did not have WMD. The issue is whether the level of threat posed by Saddam was deliberately exaggerated. This question will not be answered by the discovery or non-discovery of WMD; it is just a bit more complicated than that.