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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (77205)	6/18/2006 6:27:46 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

This is why the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese were not on board with the invasion You mean, aside from what they were being paid, don't you? Look at what the situation was and what the options were: 1. Sanctions / containment continue. The US continues to pay the costs (military & diplomatic), while France, Russians etc. continue to collect Oil for Food bribes. Not too bad from their point of view. 2. Sanctions / containment break down; Saddam resumes position as chief Arab leader. France and Russia clean up with promised oil contracts, reaping billions. US takes the hit. If Saddam should make trouble again, the US will have to handle it. Not too bad from their point of view. 3. The US declares Saddam in violation of truce agreement and invades. Oil for Food bribes stop, all prospect of rich oil contracts disappear. Destabilization of Mideast occurs, possibly triggering refugees. No benefit from their point of view, very possible downside. Lousy from their point of view. Of course, from the point of view of the US and Iraq, the priorities were a little different. This is why the issue of WMDs is and was basically a diplomatic convenience, or if you prefer, a red herring. Cui bono? is the question to ask.

To: Cogito who wrote (77205)	6/18/2006 11:35:15 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

Re: "Basically, most of the world was looking into a fog, and all the intelligence agencies, including our own, knew that." One wonders what this means. So all the intelligence agencies were seeing clearly, and were not in a fog, eh? Interesting isn't it then, that they all believed Saddam surely had WMD's? Or, am I to suppose you think they weren't in fog, but purposefully lied? I plainly gather you don't think alleged "caveats and equivocation" on the part of our own intelligence folks indicated there was any kind of fog around them. Heck, you know intelligence from countries which did not join the coalition indicated Saddam surely had WMD's. What I say may not mean much to you now, but I tell you surely, Nadine's reply to you contained information that is absolutely necessary to understand what went on, and frankly, knowing it does one hell of a lot to buffer what you seem to believe is clear cut. Let's just say our faulty intelligence WAS foggy. But let's say it was sincere and led us to engage in a very fitting liberation of Iraq. Saddam continued to seek clandestine channels to import rockets and weapons outlawed to it 'til the end. Saddam's Iraq never condemned 911, but predicted more was coming soon, speaking very much as an insider to the act. Saddam monetarily supported various terrorist organizations, almost certainly including Al Qaeda itself. It remains quite plausible that information indicating Saddams Iraq helped train 911 hijackers is true (hardly preposterous you know, given who Saddam was). Dan B.