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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (172602)	7/25/2003 5:58:36 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576346

All of that makes some sense as a justification for not showing the inspectors evidence that the WMD was destroyed if they where, but it doesn't explain why they would be destroyed in the first place. If he wasn't going to allow the destruction to be verified then he wasn't going to gain any benefit from destroying the WMD, and I can't see Saddam destroying the WMD without gaining something from doing so. Remember Saddam kicked out the inspectors in '98 when it looked like most if not all WMD had been destroyed. It would appear that Saddam didn't want it to be conclusive that all the WMD were destroyed. Given his level of paranoia, that would mean his enemies might realize he was vulnerable and come after him. Don't you remember all the conventional weapons they found? I believe those were the weapons he was building and buying to protect himself. Frankly, I think he was afraid of the US and was caught between maintaining his militaristic image and placating us. When all is said and done, I suspect this whole scenario will be looked upon by future generations as pretty pathetic. ted