SI
SI
discoversearch

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 START THE WAR
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: PartyTime who wrote (20207)3/13/2003 7:59:05 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) of 25898
 
Those questions are so easy:

1 - He is trying to make the UN work as it should.
2 - Several of the neighbors are hostile to the West (Iran and Syria). Turkey is hostile to Kurds. Saudi Arabia is chicken. BTW, Qatar is also supporting us -that makes at least two neighbors.
3 - We should not wait till its happened to be concerned about a serious threat. I've shown a number of ways Saddam has aided terrorists who have targeted Americans - most recently the Iraqi diplomats expelled from the Philippines for supporting Abu Sayyaf which recently killed a couple of Americans there.
4 - It isn't just the gov't saying Iraq isn't complying , it's the UN. Resolution 1441 said Iraq was in material breach.
5- Several reasons - some are doing business with Saddam, some want the UN to constrain US power and increase their relative power in intl' affairs.
6 - Because we've been trying to get the UN to be a force for peace and justice.
7 - Why should they? Should the US invade Venezuela and put their oil industry back to work?
8 -We are the only superpower left on earth and strength should be coupled with responsibility. We should be proud of American policy on this issue.
9- It can't make the terrorists give up weapons. It can prevent Iraq from supplying themin the future.
10 - No, it has nothing to do with that. Getting rid of Saddam won't produce a cure for cancer either.
11- Because his security establishment has many more weapons than the citizens probably.
12 - No. But there is little chance of that. The US's main challenge will be handling the Rep. Guard with whatever chem/bio weapons they're able to get off - not an occasional irate citizen with a pistol.
13 - Fine with me.
14 - Well, he should be breathing in a prison cell.
15 - Of course, but Iraq may not have been involved with 9/11. Or it may have, who knows. But it's future 9/11's we should be concerned about preventing.
16 - When we don't want our planes shot down. Iraq recently threatened our U2 planes even after they had agreed to allow the flights.
17 - Both are threats. NK is the harder to handle as it is so much farther along on its WMD development. All the more reason to stop Iraq early.
18- Don't know. There are good indications a majority will be grateful for the removal of Saddam. Personal weapons are not our concern.
19- Probably not. But the murder of Iraqi citizens aren't our only problem with Saddam. The prior questions indicate a knowledge of these other issues.
20 - A greater likelihood of peace, yes. There are no guarantees though.

I glad to hear the questioner will support the troops on the battlefield. I hope the rest of the antiwar folks here will do the same.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News