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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (18183)	10/1/2004 3:32:20 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 90947

To admit that the intelligence was wrong. I'd say "probably wrong", and limit the conclusion to the issue of stockpiles. All the reports I've read about seem to indicate that he did have the capacity to restart his programs at any time and that they have found some WMD evidence, just not large stockpiles of weapons. However, I say "probably" even regarding stockpiles because it is not far fetched at all to think he may have been able to move weapons out of the country, likely through Syria. This is one of those things where we may never have conclusive proof. One could prove he DID have them simply by finding them, but not that he didn't by not finding them.

To: JBTFD who wrote (18183)	10/1/2004 3:48:04 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Respond to of 90947

To me it is just refreshingly candid to admit that maybe there weren't chemical and biological and nuclear weapons on a large scale in Iraq. What is the time frame on that statement? I think that it would be refreshingly candid for all to admit that at some point in history, there werent chemical and biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, and that at some other point in history, there were at least some of the above. Here is an interesting quote: Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. That quote is from a U.S. President, but it's not from Bush, it's from Clinton, who used that as a justification for bombing Iraq for several days in late 1998. I don't think there's much question, as Clinton said, that Saddam had WMD's at some point. The question in my mind is whether he adequately complied with the international community's demands, and his own promises dating from 1991, to disarm and destroy those weapons. As for whether those weapons existed "on a large scale" (your words), I'm not so sure I want that to be the threshold inquiry before action is taken. It doesn't take many nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons to cause massive suffering. You could fit enough of those weapons in a small office to destroy large swaths of the population, if you were so inclined. That's the whole point of putting weapons of mass destruction in a different rhetorical category from ordinary weapons.