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: Sun Tzu who wrote (119050)	11/10/2003 10:28:58 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes but did he use the word "imminent"? No? Then I guess he can't be blamed for it :-O Sophistry. Spin. Those of you who are looking for "imminent" entirely miss the main point. And you spin like a top when the facts don't support your short-sighted predilections. This is precisely what he said: "According to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given," telegraph.co.uk In addition, there is a significant distinction between the launch of a small-scale WMD attack and Iraq's development of sufficient WMD capabilities to create a threat to the stability of the region. The latter is what prompted the attack on Iraq. Was Saddam a threat to the fragile stability of the region? Do you really argue that he was not? Do you really argue that the proven breakdown in sanctions and containment was going to self-repair? Or that Saddam was going to grow wings and a halo?