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: Ilaine who wrote (138837)	7/5/2004 4:23:33 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 281500

<<So far, what has been found is old WMD dating back to the Iran-Iraq war which are extremely deteriorated, although still dangerous.>> I had a friend recently return from Iraq due to an injury and he says they are finding chemical weapons. Part of the Tigris River is closed to boat traffic due to dumped chemical weapons.

To: Ilaine who wrote (138837)	7/5/2004 5:41:51 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Cb, seems to me that the serious question (for those not simply seeking partisan kludgels) turns on intent. Nothing tough about making more CW once you've made it in the past, so if your stocks are deteriorating, you can always make more (remember that the inspectors were out of the country at the time). The more interesting question is, do you want to, & what for? Putin said recently that Russian intelligence said that Saddam planned attacks on the US. There were Iraqi fingerprints on the 1993 WTC attack, as well as Al Qaeda, according to the prosecutor of the case. So the question becomes, how long do you wait and what do you wait for? Especially considering existing relations and the crumbling of containment?

To: Ilaine who wrote (138837)	7/5/2004 5:56:42 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You've been convinced Saddam did not have anything but "a few leftover old shells" and that those don't matter. And that if there weren't massive stockpiles of recently created WMD's there was no reason to get rid of Saddam. If Saddam had intended to never again present a WMD threat to his neighbors or the world, there would not have been ANYleftover old shells to find. Nor would the Iraq Survey Group led by David Kay and later by Charles Duelfer have found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" by UNSC resolutions. Both Duelfer and Kay found that Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," insightmag.com Nor would former secretary of defense William Cohen have justified the destruction of the Shifa plant in Khartoum by testifying to the September 11 Commission, under oath, that an executive from the al Qaeda-linked plant "traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX [nerve gas] program"? weeklystandard.com and freerepublic.com And moving on to another of the many reasons to want Saddam gone, if Saddam was no longer a continuing threat to the security of other countries in a vital region of the world, he wouldn't have claimed Kuwait is still a part of Iraq last week at his arraignment. And if Saddam's support of terror groups was not a threat to the US, the Iraqi indicted for creating the explosive used in the 1993 WTC bombing wouldn't have had a government job in Iraq until the war. Nor would USA official Lawrence Foley have been murdered by terrorists operating out of Iraq in 2002. I could go on and on but that ought to be enough. There were a host of vital reasons to remove the continuing threat Saddam represented. Bill Buckley and some others may have forgotten them, but I haven't.