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: TimF who wrote (2593)	2/3/2004 6:39:00 PM
From: tejek	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. Bush wanted us to think that but they were not losing support. There was some agreement to expand the list of allowable items into Iraq but the changes were hardly major. 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? Huh? You'll have to clarify. 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%. Sorry, there are no WMDs. You need to accept that and move on. 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. Good! Go for it! Encourage Bush to invade the Ukraine AND Syria and Iran! I want him out and that will insure that it happens. 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. Listen, tough guy, you can't have it both ways. Bush said Iraq had WMDs based on intel reports. Either Intel lied or Bush lied because there are no WMDs. ted