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: tekboy who wrote (123011)	1/11/2004 1:24:20 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

and in fact, this whole case is a good example of how even the "professionals" can be wrong (altho the "ideologues" were even wronger<g>) About the exact state of Saddam's WMDs on Jan 1, 2003, the ideologues were wronger. But the ideologues are not too bothered, because the exact state of Saddam's WMDs on Jan 1, 2003 was not a major point with them, just something the lawyers told them to use to build a case. What the ideologues really worried about was, what Saddam's WMDs were going to look like, and what Saddam would do and say, after his protectors France and Germany got the sanctions dissolved, and forced the US to back down, one more time, in the Persian Gulf. Pollack's tone is curious to me. "The war was not all bad," he says, then goes on to list six major reasons why it was good, very good, for the US and for the Iraqis, and probably for the whole region. He doesn't list one reason why it was bad. So why is he so down on it?