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: michael97123 who wrote (147602)	10/11/2004 12:11:11 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Because Sadddam had no WMD, or none we've found yet, he would have kicked out the inspectors rather than have the inspectors determine that he didn't have any. Why? Because part of his prestige and deterrence potential vis-a-vis enemies internal and external depended on successfully continuing the perception that he had them. He was known to have used them in Iran and on the Kurds, so his intentions and capabilities were well-known. Saddam might not have survived having his bluff called by an inspection regime which determined that he had none. Hence, he would not have allowed extensive inspections. If he had kicked any subsequent inspectors out, like he did in '98, and as he would have been forced to do for the reasons set forth above, in my opinion the ultimate situation would have not been any different than what we have now.