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 (118755)	11/6/2003 4:32:32 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I know that there are people in the United States who have turned over every possible stone desperately looking for something to pin on Saddam hoping that this will make it seem like there was a threat, but it does not change the reality -- no WMD and no threat from WMD in Iraq in 2003. The issue is not whether there was a threat -- we now know with certainty that there was no threat. The only debate now is over who knew there was no threat. Putin was blunt about it. French intelligence came to the same conclusion. The President of the United States erred badly if he thought there was a threat -- if he truly believed that then the question is how could he have been so badly misled. Please lets not waste any more time continuing to pretend there was a threat. This war was political from the start.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (118755)	11/6/2003 5:01:38 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"As Brumar pointed out to you, France stated in PUBLIC that Saddam had WMDs! Their argument was that even though Saddam had WMDs, he was "contained" enough not to need invasion." In other words they weren't a threat- which was what was said. Perhaps the US thought they were a threat, in which case the US might want a reality check, but France clearly didn't feel threatened, and that's the crux of the matter. "The fact is there was no threat and everybody knew it -- including the US. " Ok, maybe the US leaders didn't know. Which was and is too bad for us.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (118755)	11/8/2003 4:18:57 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "As Brumar pointed out to you, France stated in PUBLIC that Saddam had WMDs!" In early 2003, France NEVER publicly made the statement that Iraq was in possession of WMDs as of early 2003. Now even I say that Iraq had WMDs long before that, but France DID NOT say that in early 2003, Iraq STILL had WMDs. At best, what Chirac said was that Iraq "probably" still had WMDs. Here's the original source, in context, from Time Magazine: Interview with Chirac ... TIME: Isn't France ducking its military responsibilities to its oldest ally? Chirac: France is not a pacifist country. We currently have more troops in the Balkans than the Americans. France is obviously not anti-American. It's a true friend of the United States and always has been. It is not France's role to support dictatorial regimes in Iraq or anywhere else. Nor do we have any differences over the goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. For that matter, if Saddam Hussein would only vanish, it would without a doubt be the biggest favor he could do for his people and for the world. But we think this goal can be reached without starting a war. But you seem willing to put the onus on inspectors to find arms rather than on Saddam to declare what he's got. Are there nuclear arms in Iraq? I don't think so. Are there other weapons of mass destruction? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them. In its current situation, does Iraq—controlled and inspected as it is—pose a clear and present danger to the region? I don't believe so. Given that, I prefer to continue along the path laid out by the Security Council. Then we'll see. ... time.com Also see: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 -- Carl P.S. Definition of "probable" in English: 1. Likely to happen or to be true: ... 2. Likely but uncertain; plausible. 3. Theology. Of or relating to opinions and actions in ethics and morals for whose lawfulness intrinsic reasons or extrinsic authority may be adduced. dictionary.reference.com In other words, all Chirac was saying, especially as seen in the context of other statements he had made at that time, was that believing that Iraq still had WMDs was reasonable, not that he had any knowledge that they, in fact, actually existed. Furthermore, it's likely that some of the evidence that Chirac used to conclude that Iraq did have WMDs were lies and exaggerations from the Bush administration. Certainly France or Chirac NEVER said that they had ANY independent evidence that suggested that Iraq had WMDs in early 2003. To generalize from a "probable" to a "fact" is to lie. The 3 or 4 hundred US soldiers now dead are not "probably" dead, they are, as a matter of fact, dead. And the WMDs that they died for, "probably" did not exist. What you guys did was to trade a nonexistant phantasm in the closet for a real butcher job on our own citizens. And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what life in Israel is going to be like when all those SAMs from Iraq begin drifting into Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt. Plus all the weapons and munitions that the US army will abandon (just like it abandoned live munitions all over Vietnam).