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: TimF who wrote (157502)	2/1/2005 12:05:34 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<The Arab nations didn't endorse a toppling of Saddam in the either war and would not have even if the UN had endorsed such action. Also I'm not so sure that even if the Arab countries endorsed and supported and participated in the invasion that a few tens of thousands of Arab soldiers would make a huge difference.> They did not endorse a toppling then for a good reason -- there was no basis for it. The basis for it this time was increasingly clear -- wmd. But there were no wmd and the inspectors were increasingly able to confirm this. So therein lies the problem -- had the inspections continued, the UN would have increasingly come to the conclusion that there were no wmd -- the correct conclusion. The US would continue to claim there were wmd -- a wrong conclusion. We would not have had our invasion going this route. If the wmd issue was a pretext, then it would be an inconvenience to have most countries come to the conclusion that Saddam posed no threat.