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 : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kumar who wrote (1460)	6/6/2007 12:54:22 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 4152

State Department hit by staff shortage crisis, Rice blamed news.yahoo.com

To: kumar who wrote (1460)	6/6/2007 1:46:16 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 4152

I dunno the answer. I do recollect that we and our allies talked about existence of WMD in Iraq, in the UN - that was based on incorrect intel. Yes.. given that our sole source of on the ground intel was the UNSCOM inspection teams, who departed in 1998, the intel was VERY sketchy. The best source of intel we had was Naji Sabri, Iraq's Foreign Minister, who told us that Saddam did not, at that time, have an active nuclear program, but ALSO told us that Saddam had claimed to have hidden 500 tonnes of chemical weapons. Of course, we just had no real way of knowing what Saddam did, or did not, have. But we knew that he had every intention (later confirmed by the Duelfer report) of restarting his WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted. But, IMO, it didn't matter. Saddam committed a material breach when he kicked out the UNSCOM inspectors for discovering documents that stated Iraq had mistated the number of chemical weapons used during the Iran-Iraq war (13000 versus a claimed 19000). None of those 6000 missing warheads have ever been accounted for, despite the fact that Naji Sabri's information seemed to corroborate their existence (500 tonnes of chemicals). When one party commits a material breach of a cease-fire, the other party has EVERY right to use whatever means are required to resolve it. And that's what we did in 2003. Now, I guess I don't need to relink to Saddam's 1993 order to attack Americans, effectivly renewing hostilities with the US, now do I? .. ;0) Hawk