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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (237883)	7/26/2007 1:37:59 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

What went to Syria was no doubt valuable to those who received it and to those who sent it. I doubt that it's of much consequence in the grand scheme of things. I doubt that it involved some of Khan's nukes. Maybe Saddam had a nuke or two but no means of delivery. I have no idea whether Saddam was a friend of Khan's gang or not. Libya was in the good books. Could be it's a nuke or two gone to Syria. If there really are small nukes gone to Syria, perhaps they are stolen items from USSR and hilariously, probably inactive and sold as the real thing. No way to check I suppose. Saddam didn't want American spies checking out everything [of course]. What a surprise. They were out to get him and he had all the evidence in the world of that. < Saddam's denying he had WMDs but refusing the inspections that would have cleared him & kept him alive made me think he was hiding something. > It wasn't so much that I believed Saddam, as that the overall picture I got was one that he didn't have anything to use that would do him any good. Anyway, it's all history now. Mqurice

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (237883)	7/26/2007 7:29:22 AM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

All you have said is that you don't particularly care what the conclusion of the Iraq survey project was, after years of searching and billions of dollars. You just know, and it's up to anybody who would dispute your infallible reasoning to prove that the stuff you pull out of thin air isn't true. This whole line of "reasoning" is ridiculous on so many levels, but the main thing is, nobody would care if W hadn't made such a mess in Iraq. If any of the prewar BS about what a beacon of democracy Iraq was going to be had come true, W wouldn't have to worry much about that particular bit of "ancient history". The main problem in Iraq is the "ancient history" of how incredibly badly Rummy and his neocon brain trust managed the occupation, and how long W kept the same idiots in charge. Of course, now, 4 years after W accomplished his mission, we're back to 9/11 24/7. If only NPR chanted "Arrowhead Ripper" every hour on the hour, though the world would know that things are going really well in Iraq now.