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: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (128654)	4/7/2004 3:12:00 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Not really.... The Baathist regime had what international politics favors uber alles : stability. Just like North Korea is nice and stable Only viewed in the short-term. Anybody who thought that Iraq, free of sanctions, would remain stable and unaggressive, hasn't looked at Saddam's history. I don't believe Iraq had any real weapons of mass destruction left at the time we invaded I agree. I think by March 2003 they had been trucked to Syria. We gave Saddam a long time to prepare. But if sanctions had ever ended, I'm pretty sure that the regime would have started their program up again at the first opportunity, rather than taking Libya's route For sure, plus they would have gone shopping. We know they were trying as late as March 2003. In hindsight that was a real mistake not toppling the regime then and getting it over with. We probably wouldn't even have needed to leave military bases in Saudi Arabia Clearly. Our Saudi allies were telling us that Saddam would fall, and we beleived them.