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: sea_biscuit who wrote (79700)	10/3/2006 12:17:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Duh! The inspections would have continued periodically. Thank you for agreeing with my point. The inspection process is open ended and thus would never have been done. It is not as if the UN would have left forever. At some point they would have. The support for the sanctions was declining and they where becoming more porous. The support for the inspection process firmed up as an alternative to invasion, but it would not have been maintained indefinitely. The bottom-line is that Saddam didn't have any WMDs Not having WMDs isn't the point. The bottom line is that there was serious reasons to be concerned that he would have eventually had them again. Esp. chemical weapons. The production equipment is basicly the same as that used for the production of pesticides (and can be alternated between the two). Large stockpiles of chemical weapons might have been detected, but the ability to produce new weapons would always be there, and the moment the sanctions plus inspections regime fell apart new weapons could quickly be created.