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: cnyndwllr who wrote (139124)	7/7/2004 1:54:08 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

his concept of threat is the "if" the very iffy "if"

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (139124)	7/7/2004 1:57:09 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

He was frequently obstructionist until threatened by the United States. Blix was complaining about the level of cooperation throughout, although it had improved over time. There were many stockpiles unaccounted for, and, as Blix noted, the explanations offered were unsatisfactory. Even Blix has said that he acted guilty, postulating one of two things: that he was loathe to give up the pretense that he was bristling with unconventional arms, to intimidate othrs, or that his henchman had been lying to him about progress in such programs. Of course, the analogy breaks down because we were not acting merely in response to his behavior, but to various intelligence sources which indicated that he was building up his WMD resources: to what end? I personally do not believe that the intelligence services were that mistaken, which is why I point to testimony which supports the idea of transferring weapons to Syria. Some people say "Why didn't he use them against us?" Well, he didn't do so during the first Gulf War either, although we know he had them then. My guess is that he thought we would drop a nuke on him if he crossed the line.