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: Hawkmoon who wrote (118873)	11/7/2003 8:28:41 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Why? After all, the peaceniks say he didn't have any connections with terrorism, and he was never an imminent threat to the US.. And it seems that they were right. Do you really think he'd let those WMDs fall into the hands of unknown parties?.. wink, wink, nudge, nudge.. And you think he necessarily has a choice? He no longer has a large army of consequence. The Iraqis have been emptying the arms caches [depots]... Now if they could account for 13,000 weapons used during that war, it begs the question why they would not account for those other 6,000 warheads that they had declared. Not a bad question. I would add a question to that, if he really had the weapons why didn't he fake the documents that said they were destroyed? There was a site where he claimed they were destroyed in 1992; and there was residue in the soil that indicated there were some weapons destroyed there. The issue was how many? How tough would have been to come up with some documents that said they were destroyed. Then again, if he had come up with some documents is there any reason to think that the US would have accepted them as accurate? Finally, Iraq has been discovered to be a weapons stockpile extraordinaire. That country possesses at least 1 million stores of conventional ordnance (40% of the total US inventory, some claim). Only 10% of it has been searched through by David Kay and his Survey Group looking for WMDs. And a significant portion of those caches were not secured by the coalition forces. [The only thing the coalition forces seemed to be interested in is securing the oil ministry.] The Iraqis [or possible foreign fighters] have been emptying them of munitions. You suggest that there may be WMD there. They're unsecured sites. Who knows who may have picked them up? And where they might have been taken. One thing we know for certain, is that the US didn't know where any WMD were at the time of the invasion. And they had no ability of securing those alleged WMD. We also know that there has been no documents found or credible persons found indicate where at any time those WMD were. They test for residuals at sites...even if there were WMD at a particular location we could determine that by testing. If the US was 100% certain that there were WMD in Iraq, why didn't they accept Sadam's offer to let in US Intelligence into Iraq to show them where they were? Why didn't the US allow the UN inspectors to complete the effort with Iraq in attempting to assess how many weapons may have been destroyed? We claimed we had proof that Iraq had WMD before we initiated an invasion; where is it? Why wasn't the US able to determine that the Niger documents were forgeries? If Iraq had 6,000 weapons and an active biological and chemical weapons programs that the US claimed they did, why was Kuwait told that they didn't need gas masks for it's population? If the US is convinced that there are WMD out there somewhere in Iraq, why are we reducing the forces available to find them? If the US is convinced that there are WMD out there in Iraq, why do they refuse to let the UN inspectors back in to help out? jttmab