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: Neocon who wrote (116549)	10/11/2003 12:43:37 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Saddam WAS definitely non-compliant. But his non-compliance did not constitute a threat. His non-compliance largely consisted of lousy record-keeping. As for sources, we had pretty good intelligence from the UN inspectors but lost that when they were pulled out of Iraq. After that, the flow of intelligence was replaced by "stories" from Iraqi exiles -- most of them self-serving and in promotion of an invasion without any actual evidence of a threat. With the inspectors back in during 2003, the intelligence was beginning to flow again. The invasion was not based on intelligence -- we had nothing new since 1998. An invasion due to non-compliance was an issue for the UN and for the UN only -- and that in itself is a leading reason why a unilateral US invasion was such a blunder and cost us so dearly with our "allies".