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 (155577)	1/8/2005 12:08:44 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<no imminent threat but a gathering one> No WMDs and no active biological, chemical or nuclear programs -- it is just as much a farce to call it a gathering threat as it would be to call it an imminent threat. There was however a serious issue -- the issue of what action the UN would take in view of the clear breach by Saddam in his failure to do a proper accounting for the destruction of his WMD. <If we had found stockpiles of chem and bio weapons, would you have a different view than you now do?> My view would have been based on the threat to the United States and not on the existence of some weapons. Bush et al gambled that there would at least be some shred of evidence that would turn up after the fact to justify the wild-assed claims they had made -- surely there would be some fragment, some little tiny thing to make good on the claim that Saddam's WMDs justified an invasion. If there was a surprise, it was that there was absolutely nothing -- not a single thing -- nothing at all that could be used retroactively to say "see, see, we told you". But as to the existence of a real threat, we never came anywhere close to making that case.