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 (149412)	10/27/2004 4:33:39 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The inspections were working only because we put enormous pressure on the regime. Iraq kept a pattern of balking at cooperation, then responding to military threat. We had no obligation to continue the mobilization of over 200, 000 troops in order to wrest incremental concessions out of the regime. Why, if Saddam didn't have WMDs, did he act so guilty? I don't know, but he did. Anyway, as I said, we had more than one reason for wanting to take care of Saddam once and for all; we were the ones doing the heavy lifting in enforcing the sanctions and putting pressure on the regime to allow the inspectors to progress; and, if it came down to it, our troops were the ones who would have to fight in chemical suits in the summer. There needn't have been a clear and present danger. It was time to resolve the issue on our terms. Containment, as we have learned, was not working. Sanctions were gotten around, and Saddam was bribing more and more people and organizations to seek the end of sanctions, while planning to revive WMD programs at the end of the sanctions.