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 (155472)	1/7/2005 9:35:50 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

None of this had anything to do with evidence of WMD -- it had to do with being held accountable to the UN. Do keep in mind, there were absolutely no WMDs and no active programs. The one grey area was on missile programs, but even here the case was extremely weak. Bush et al assumed there would be something to retroactively hang their hat on -- and there was nothing -- a big zero. The assertion that we invaded Iraq to rid Iraq of WMD is the big lie -- and the big lie was the pretext for war, not its cause. The pretext turned out to be so completely and obviously empty that it was swept under the carpet as the reason for invading Iraq.

To: Neocon who wrote (155472)	1/7/2005 12:09:26 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 281500

Evidence was there, but was not conclusive. It was a matter of relying too much on informants who had agendas, and downplaying the possibility of alternative explanations for harder evidence. "Evidence" is always "there" if you simply ignore whatever contradicts that which you call "evidence." And, in politics--especially the intense politics that surrounds issues like Saddam or Al Qaeda--you can always find someone to say what you want them to say. The problem for "intelligence" agencies and govts is to separate the dross from the correct. One doesn't go to war on the basis on "evidence" gleaned from self interested expatriates. Wars may be necessary sometimes, I accept that. But they are such a drastic step and--even with "smart" bombs--invitably lead to so much blowback, that there had better be very very good reasons for it. And plans and backup plans for what to do to actually win your real objective, along with contingency plans when something goes wrong (as it always does in war). You keep defending this admin--but, rather than replying to me, sit back in a slightly darkened room tonight all by yourself, and really really ask yourself, was this really a "necesasry" war? And if you say yes, ask yourself, was this war actually well planned? Well executed?