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 (2595)	2/3/2004 7:32:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

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. Less the 0%. Think about it. Sorry, there are no WMDs. You need to accept that and move on. The only thing that is certain is that we didn't find any. This implies that there where either very little in the way of WMD or no WMD to be found or that they where moved out of the country. Its possible that none of those things are true but the chance is over 90% that one of the three is true. I personally don't think a lot of WMD where moved out of the country. So that leaves "little or no WMD" however I can't be totally certain about that. If a number of things that are probably true actually are true then there was little or no WMD but there is some small doubt at each step along the way. 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. Apparently you didn't read the list of conditions very carefully. They don't apply to Ukraine, Syria or Iran. 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 I wasn't trying to have it "both ways" because I never said that the CIA didn't lie (or that they did) I said that there just about always dissenting views and alternate opinions and that "The official position of the CIA and British intelligence was that Iraq still had WMD. " All of this allows for 4 possibilities. 1 - That the CIA lied. 2 - That the CIA was mistaken. 3 - That there where WMD but probably not nearly as much as we thought. 4 - There are tons and tons of WMD we just haven't found them yet. 4 seems very unlikely, and I wouldn't bet on 1 either. Tim