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: Maurice Winn who wrote (237791)	7/25/2007 4:45:46 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There weren't any WMDs worth discussing and that was fairly obvious before the war. Actually, that wasn't obvious to some of Saddams generals, for whom the lack of stockpiles came as an unpleasant surprise. They had thought they had some to use, Saddam having informed them that the stockpiles still existed. Nadine, the fact that we don't know what was in some trucks which supposedly went to Syria doesn't mean it was WMDs. Doesn't mean it was, doesn't mean it wasn't, especially as having some and hiding them in neighboring countries was just Saddam's style. This was a guy who buried MIGs in the desert. I get aggravated with all these protests that there was nothing, nothing, it was all a lie. Here's a good analogy: the police get a tip that there is a drug lab in a certain house. However, when they get there, it is clear that they weren't the only ones being tipped off; the house is empty. But neighbors report that they saw a truck being loaded the night before. Question: do you conclude that the house wasn't a drug lab, and that the residents were innocent? Especially if they have run drug labs before and have rap sheets a yard long? Apparently you do, since so many are drawing the equivalent conclusion about Saddam.