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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (109733)	8/3/2003 10:05:11 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

If we had waited for an actual attack, we wouldn't have to be fooled. And it looks quite probable that no attack from Iraq would have come. However, we can probably expect one from somewhere else. Will we be too tied up in Iraq to handle it?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (109733)	8/4/2003 2:42:51 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "I believe they thought they'd find lots of BW and CW. ... Now having wrong intelligence is pretty bad, but, as I've noted about a thousand times, Saddam sure had everybody* fooled on this point." A little reminder: Bilow, September 16, 2002 Since Saddam is allowing inspections, I'd say that it's highly likely that Ritter was right, and that Iraq doesn't have any WMDs.* #reply-17998530 Nadine Carroll, in reply Let's try a much more probable scenario, a repeat of history: Saddam thinks he can pretend to agree, then impede the inspectors from finding his labs while he finishes assembling his nukes. The labs are all mobile now and much harder to find. Come on, Carl, you're the one who keeps talking about the immutibility of human nature. You really think the leopard has changed his spots? #reply-17998557 -- Carl