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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (56469)	7/27/2004 12:04:50 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794397

Of course, but the argument is that they were so effective until 1998 that in 2003 Saddam was no threat. This argument completely ignores the fact that Saddam's cash flow was likely to increase due to smuggling, that WMD are relatively cheaply produced, and that sanctions and containment were in fact breaking down, or that the perception of Saddam as a future threat was the basis for the war. I have a lot of diffculties with the chronological aspects of the argument made by Lopez and his co-author, but I do think that their views are some of the more original on the issue.