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: Neocon who wrote (148408)	10/20/2004 6:02:35 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The main point should be to note that Germany is not involved in the war. Clearly they did NOT believe that Saddam posed a clear and present threat to world security. Nor did France. Both are a lot closer to Iraq than the US is. You may claim that oil for food program graft and business relationships (not that clear) caused Germany and France to take a pass, but that isn't credible. France and Germany are both members of NATO, as is the US, Britain, Canada and a number of other countries - some of which decided to participate, some of which did not. Had an imminent threat by Iraq been detected by German or Frech intelligence, or even a truly credible threat argument made by the US, then it is all but certain that NATO would have been fully engaged in the war on Iraq. Under NATO charter an attack on one country is an attack on all. Under the circumstances of a post 9/11 world, it is implausible to believe that NATO countries would vote against assisting the US in Iraq had a credible threat been demonstrated. It is not credible nor plausible to believe that Germany or France would carry on relationships with Iraq if either country held credible evidence that Iraq was within easy grasp of obtaining WMD. For those not aware, NATO is involved in Afghanistan (are is Canada and other nations who have chosen to have nothing to do with Iraq). The bottom line: when push came to shove, the intelligence services and politicians of a number of traditional allies came to the conclusion that Iraq did not pose a credible, immediate, threat. What reports were made in the press leading up to crunch time... decision time, are irrelevant. What matters most is the ultimate decision made by their representative governments. They said NO. Which leaves us really only the two main protagonists in this conflict - the US and Britain. As has been revealed time after time after time, the information used to justify going to war was - incorrect after the fact - false, fraudulent, forged - most stunningly, incorrect BEFORE the fact. Don't bother bringing Germany or France reports up -- the bottom line is they said no, which simply means that the intelligence didn't support the conclusion Bush leapt to.