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: Michael Watkins who wrote (148868)	10/24/2004 4:00:00 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I feel pretty stupid about giving my support without really looking hard at the issues then, given my natural tendency to be constructively skeptical Michael, this is what I mean by a revisionist view of history. However skeptical you had been, what would you have found that was different? Everybody thought Saddam had WMDs. The US, the Brits, the French, the Germans. That's what he wanted the world to think, and considering his track record, it was an easy sale. Our troops went in wearing gas masks. Mubarak warned Powell that our troops would be gassed. If we had had a mole in Saddam's inner circle - let's say one of Iraq's top generals - then that man would also have reported that Saddam had WMDs! We only know that Saddam didn't have stocks because we conquered the country and looked for them. If we hadn't done that, we would still be sure that he had them. So what would all the skepticism in the world have gained you? I supported the war in 2002 as a geopolitical necessity, and still do. The state of Saddam's CW stocks had very little to do with my reasoning. The real weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were named Saddam, Uday, and Qusay.