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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (490090)	11/10/2003 10:38:58 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Respond to of 769670

You have to understand the difference between imminent, and imminently imminent. You see, Saddam was not an imminent threat such as North Korea, or China and other countries which we know have WMD. Iraq was only an imminently imminent threat. If he ever got WMD, he would then move from an imminently imminent threat to an imminent threat. Once he reached that status, it would be too late to take him out militarily. You see, the Bush Administration decided to fight Iraq because they really were pretty sure that they did not have WMD. Because if they really had WMD they could not have attacked in the fashion that they did. Saddam would have launched an all out attack on the US forces and fired missiles at Israel with WMD too. Do you think that the Bush administration would actually gamble with the safety of the troops, or with the safety of Israel? Not likely. So it appears to me that they already knew that Saddam was impotent, thus making him a likely candidate for the use of military force. Colin Powell once said that "we have several tools in the tool box". We choose to use the diplomacy tool with a country like N. Korea. Why? Because we know they have WMD. We choose a military invasion tool for Iraq. Why? Because we know that they do not have WMD. Elementary my dear Watson. Orca