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: TimF who wrote (79698)	10/3/2006 12:12:37 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Duh! The inspections would have continued periodically. It is not as if the UN would have left forever. Sometime later, another inspection team would be formed and they rinse and repeat all over again. The bottom-line is that Saddam didn't have any WMDs and your Dumbyass invaded Iraq before the inspectors could decisively establish it. It was left to Dumbyass' own inspectors to come to that decision. You are such an idiot that you keep going round and round over meaningless details. Look at the bottom-line - Dumbyass lied. Dumbyass invaded. Dumbyass murdered.

To: TimF who wrote (79698)	10/3/2006 9:22:48 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

>>Maintaining inspections after its determined that the WMD aren't there isn't "searching for something that isn't there", its making sure that the thing isn't created after you have determined it isn't there. Unless you are willing to say, "since you have no WMD now we'll leave you alone and don't care if you produce WMD in the future", the inspections process is inherently open ended. Its never done, except perhaps by failing when the willingness or ability to impose the inspections and sanctions regime falls apart.<< Tim - Apparently our occupation of Iraq is open ended as well. Certainly, an ongoing inspection scheme would have been preferable to the chaos that has caused tens of thousands of deaths, massive destruction to the country's infrastructure, and the creation of a whole new generation of dedicated terrorists around the Muslim world. I suppose you can technically call what Iraq has a "Democracy" simply because it features elections, but when the government's power to rule is derived chiefly from force, including foreign force, and when the people have limited personal liberties and fragile personal security, you don't have what I would call a free, Democratic society. - Allen