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: Dan B. who wrote (34200)	7/7/2004 11:15:28 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 81568

I don't think anyone in the intelligence community would agree with you about "finding WMD". If you're talking about the the two old sarin shells that were found, most experts say that these old shells posed little or no threat. They certainly pale in comparison to the amount of WMD Bush expected to find. Or maybe you're talking about the mobile weapons labs? The two trailers found have been proved to be of no threat what so ever. But all that said, Saddam was dangerous. That is why we had him contained. There was no imminent threat, and no need to invade Iraq for national security reasons. A better approach would have been to completely wipe out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan when we had the opportunity. Instead we diverted precious resources to Iraq, and pissed off the rest of the world doing it. And now with hind sight we can see that even after Saddam is gone, Iraq is still a mess. The outcome of events in Iraq will largely depend on the Iraqi people themselves. I don't think that an invasion was the only option for dealing with Saddam. We wasted 25,000 people to get to Saddam. Orca