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: KyrosL who wrote (136317)	6/11/2004 8:52:46 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

Great post

To: KyrosL who wrote (136317)	6/11/2004 10:44:33 PM
From: dumbmoney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I guess you are unaware that Iraq's nuclear sites, sealed by the UN, were thoroughly looted right after the fall of Baghdad, because US troops were unaware, unwilling or unable to secure them. And because the Pentagon neocons, out of spite, banned the U.N. inspectors from Iraq. (Think about that: Saddam allowed the inspectors in; the U.S. kicked them out!) [ Insert Rumsfeld's "freedom is untidy" soliloquy ]

To: KyrosL who wrote (136317)	6/12/2004 12:18:38 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No, Kyros, I wouldn't say I'm splitting hairs. I'm simply reading the text of an article the way it appears to be intended to be read. Yes, obviously some of the stuff which was found was in fact tagged. I clearly do not contest that. But there is a lot of other text in the article suggesting non-tagged material. How much? Who knows. UNMOVIC is saying it has only a "snapshot" of the actual reality. To say "it was all tagged" and that this is the "key" to things is a gross simplification. And the issue is not one simply of semantics. It matters because there are apparently indications that non-tagged material existed. If non-tagged material existed, Saddam may very well have had WMD we haven't accounted for. How much? Who knows. Nadine talks about stuff going to Syria. However, I have frankly not yet seen anything along those lines that convinces me. I'd love to see it, however. We do know that Saddam's troops had chemical protective equipment. Why? We know he had made substantial nuclear efforts in the past, and we know he had used chemical weapons on the Kurds. All of a sudden, he doesn't have any, even after booting the inspectors out in '98, or whenever it was? You'll have to pardon me, I'm suffering a severe case of cognitive dissonance with the notion that he was WMD-free. It makes absolutely no sense. So you'll excuse me if I look very carefully at the little evidence there is. I call it being careful, but you are free to call it hair-splitting. And, finally, how about that elephant in the bedroom no one but absolutely no one here wants to talk about? Not even Pollack in his article in The Atlantic. That to me is the real issue. I obviously realize that this issue--Saddam's potential purchase of nuke material in the black market as a justification for the war--is a tough one. And it is subject to interpretation bias, i.e., I wouldn't expect you or any of the writers here who are in general agreement with your views to support the case. I would, however, expect at least a discussion dealing with why the premise is wrong. It has a lot of appeal to me. Shoot it down, if you wish, I'm only interested in how far we can take the argument along. So far, however, the silence is deafening.