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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (34114)	7/7/2004 6:23:25 PM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

That is a false dilemma. There are no facts establishing that if Saddam had WMDs, any harm would come to the United States. In fact, the CIA said it was unlikely. Saddam did, in fact, have WMDs during the 1980's and early 1990's. No harm came to the United States due to his possession of WMDs, even after we kicked the crap out of his army. Even if he had WMDs and the intent to use them against us (of course there was no such intent), he was incapable of delivering a WMDs attack in a meaningful way. Of course there is also the fact that we have over 10,000 nuclear weapons, which serves as quite a deterrant to attacking the US.