SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Hawkmoon who wrote (136107)6/9/2004 9:55:33 PM
From: Zeuspaul  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
So for Scott Ritter to try and refute the claims and assertions of almost every major intelligence operation on the planet

Do you really believe amost every major intelligence operation on the planet is coming clean with the full story?? That seems a bit far fetched to me. They are not exactly the open book type of agencies.

Are you including the Israelis? Do you really believe the Israelis would have allowed Saddam to exist if they thought he was such a grave danger? If he were such a grave danger to the US he certainly would have been a more serious threat to Israel.

I am more inclined to trust my common sense than this consensus of all the best brains on the planet.



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (136107)6/10/2004 1:08:51 AM
From: dumbmoney  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hawk,

As usual you obfuscate the issues. The issue was never Iraqi "compliance", it was whether it was some sort of mortal threat that required going to war. The CIA specifically denied that Iraq was an imminent threat, and also denied that Iraq would use "WMD" (if they had any left), unless they were attacked first.

You claim there was international consensus on Iraq. You're right: there was a consensus that Iraq was not a threat.