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: Hawkmoon who wrote (182906)	3/5/2006 10:41:53 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It mattered not whether Saddam actually possessed WMDs or not. What mattered was that almost every intelligence agency belonging to members of the UNSC unanimously agreed that Iraq was in material breach and no one could guarantee whether Saddam was in compliance or not. And even in March, 2003, after Saddam was granted a further 90 days to "fess up", UNMOVIC inspectors were forced to file a 176 page report disclosing STILL UNRESOLVED issues related to Iraq's WMD programs/inventory. What is unequivocal is that Iraq's disclosures in 2003 were pretty damn accurate. The fact that everyone else was delusional should not have been their problem, although we certainly made it so. The point at which I realized how badly off things were was the stink made about his missiles range, where the US was arguing for the treaty range based on zero warhead weight. LOL! The reality is that no one can credibly state exactly what the status of those missing WMD inventories actually are. Hawk, the problem is one of balance. WRT to Iraq you demand absolute proof of non-existence. In the case of Israel you demand absolute proof of existence. Don't you see just a wee problem between those two extremes. Why not the other way around for instance?