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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: brian1501 who wrote (182526)	2/13/2004 7:52:16 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575608

Brian, re: John, you freaking idiot, the entire point of the comment is the inspections were doomed to failure regardless of the presence of the WMD, because Iraq was NOT a willing participant in the inspections. Do you really believe for one second that a team of UN inspectors is going to prove conclusively that there is, or is not WMD without complete, unfettered, and EAGER willingness to provide access to the country? The combination of inspections and sanctions put SH is a box. And it was obviously effective. Now you can argue that the threshold for going to war is that we are 100% sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that no one, no where, in any part of a particular country, is in the process of making WMD's. You could put 1000 inspectors and sanctions on, say, tiny Cuba, but you still can't 100% prove the negative. re: Do you mind explaining, genius, how hindsight of the existence of WMD can possibly figure into a discussion of whether the inspection regime was workable in the first place?? Certainly, (combined with sanctions) it worked. SH wasn't producing WMD's. Now the next question you have to ask yourself is, why did we invade, overthrow a government, and occupy a country when we had a system that was successful at our stated goal? With absolutely zero solid evidence that it wasn't working? At a huge human, political and economic cost. If it was because we couldn't prove the negative, then the decision makers are using really bad logic. And that would lead to a lot of other costly mistakes. If there were other motives, then the decision makers were deceptive (some would say lying) about the reason. Take your pick. John