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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (2590)	2/3/2004 6:11:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

He didn't for 5 or more years. You know why.....the econ. sanctions were working The sanctions where losing support until Bush got confrontational and the sanctions hurt the Iraqi people without really hurting Saddam. An almost meaningless statement, and one that's accuracy can't be judged. It can be now.......the number was less than 0%. So Saddam had negative WMD. What would those be weapons that bring thousands of people back to life? It's not less then 0% or even 0%. Weapons remain unaccounted for even now and its starting to seem as if this will always be true. Note weapons can be destroyed and still be unaccounted for. The "unaccounted for" might exceed 5% of the original arsenal, the "not destroyed" weapons apparently do not exceed or probably approach 5% but they may easily exceed 0%. You arguments are getting to the desperate stage. The Ukraine could blow up the world with its nukes. Do we take them out now? If Ukraine had invaded its neighbors and threatened the strategic interests of the US, and it was run by a brutal thug who was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and it fought a war with the US and lost and got a cease fire by agreeing to certain points that it didn't follow through on and it could be defeated as easily as Iraq and the chance of Russian intervention was about 0%, and it wasn't presently a threat to directly attack the US but it was attempting to develop the capabilities that could enable it to present such a threat, and the invasion was likely to kill less people then would die without the invasion, then yes. That's a lie. Intel repeatedly said they were not sure. In a volume of data both pro and con, Bush and company only pulled on the data that would support his argument. Then Bush lied. You responded agreeing to your own point rather then quoting and responding to mine. I'm sure agreement is easier when your talking to yourself. To repeat - There are just about always dissenting views and alternate opinions. The official position of the CIA and British intelligence was that Iraq still had WMD. Apparently even Iraqi military commanders thought that while their unit might not have WMD, other units did. The people who were there now were new. Hans Blix and his crews were seasoned. They could work much faster. There where a lot fewer of them with a lot less ability to move rapidly to check things out without Saddam and company being able to respond. Besides, we would have saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars. The lives lost are probably less then those that would have been lost by the combined effects of Saddam's rule and continued sanctions. Dollars is less certain. The long run positive effect on Iraq may exceed the short and medium term US and Iraqi cost but there is a very good chance that the financial cost to the US will never be recovered by the US. Even if Iraq benefits financially more then the dollar cost to the US most of that money will not come to the US. Still I think this financial cost is not enough to change the overall equation too much. Tim