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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (278132)	7/19/2002 10:08:41 PM
From: Emile Vidrine	Respond to of 769670

Blessings OR curses for supporting Israel? Congress has given almost complete support for Israel and now the stock market and America is sinking down the drain. Where are the blessings that the Christians Zionist, TV preachers and guys like Hal Lindsey promised us for supporting Christ's/God's enemies? All the Zionists and their apostate Christian Christian Zionist supporters really want is a stupendous war in which America is destroyed. Israel has become a curse and a millstone around America neck!

To: Skywatcher who wrote (278132)	7/20/2002 4:36:24 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 769670

Give diplomacy a chance By HELEN THOMAS HEARST NEWSPAPERS Sunday, July 21, 2002 WASHINGTON -- Why doesn't President Bush give diplomacy a chance? When he has tried it, it has worked. Remember when he diffused an angry standoff with Beijing after a U.S. spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet on April 1 last year, killing the pilot? After 11 days, Bush said he was "very sorry," and the Chinese released the U.S. plane's 24 crew members held captive on Hainan island. Bush also was effective recently in easing dangerous tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir when he dispatched diplomats to talk to both sides. But when it comes to Iraq, all he does is threaten Iraq's Saddam Hussein with war. If he carries out his threat, it won't be a cheap victory and it will take a huge human toll. Bush was asked at a news conference July 8, "Regardless of when or how, is it your firm intention to get rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq?" "Yes," he replied tersely. Asked how hard he thought the battle would be, Bush said, "It's the stated policy of this government to have a regime change ... And we'll use all the tools at our disposal to do so ... And there's ways, different ways, to do it." Well, it's not news that the United States has various means to zap any nation in the world. But when Bush states our aggressive intentions so glibly, why are Americans so acquiescent? Has Congress forgotten that it has the constitutional prerogative to declare war? Are the lawmakers in office simply to genuflect? Has Saddam actually threatened the United States? Bush and several hawkish aides have accused Baghdad of sponsoring terrorism and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. But even the president is not alleging that there is any immediate threat. If there was one, Bush would be finding it much easier to rally the other nations in the region and around the world to support his battle plans. With the specter of a U.S. attack on Iraq, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has been trying to persuade the Iraqi dictator to permit the return of international weapons inspectors who were ousted in 1998. The inspectors were trying to see if Saddam was abiding by a U.N. mandate to stop producing and hiding the weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has offered to let the inspectors come back if the United Nations will lift the economic sanctions it imposed in 1990 after his invasion of Kuwait. Now it seems that Bush is trying to spook him with psychological warfare by allowing the administration to leak detailed plans calling for an invasion of Iraq with up to 250,000 Americans. Does the president really plan to risk all those lives to get one man? What is the logic of that? There is speculation that Bush wants to avenge his father, who was criticized by many conservatives in 1991 after the Persian Gulf War ended for not sending forces to Baghdad to topple Saddam. I personally find it hard to believe that such a military undertaking would be personally motivated. George H.W. Bush, incidentally, thought he had accomplished the U.S. mission by liberating Kuwait and expelling Iraqi forces that year. The elder Bush decided, wisely I believe, that it would take too many American lives to depose Saddam. It's too bad his son is not on the same compassionate wavelength. As a real threat, Saddam is pretty well de-fanged. His ability to move is constrained, and his country is ostracized. The sanctions aren't perfect, but they do hurt it economically. We bomb the "no-fly" zone over northern Iraq early and often, lest he forget who won the war. Besides, isn't it up to the Iraqi people to determine the fate of their own brutal leaders? Bush has issued similar "regime change" decrees against Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who he says has to go. Sure, we have the military might to force such changes ourselves, but what does Bush's belligerency do to our image as a peace-loving country committed to collective security in a global society? Would a U.S. iron hand make us less vulnerable to terrorist attacks? All the saber-rattling has made our friends and allies around the world increasingly wary, not knowing where our leader is going to take us next. As Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden says, Congress would support Bush in a first-strike policy against Iraq if there is a "clear and present danger and the president can make the case that we're about to be attacked." But Biden added, "To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a plan to attack the United States." The president has had worldwide support in going after the terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere. But an unprovoked pre-emptive attack on Iraq would be a hard sell. He should try more diplomacy. An olive branch just might work. ----------------------------------------------- Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. Copyright 2002 Hearst Newspapers. seattlepi.nwsource.com