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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (149263)	8/8/2002 3:23:29 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578012

As you know, liberals have been accused of using this kind of rhetoric in response to ANY argument put forth that opposes their views. Why do you assume that anyone with a differing point of view is a "dispicable" liberal? And why do you disparage a liberal point of view anyway...a counterpoint is critical to balance. This is a matter of survival. Simply put, (a) we know Saddam wants us dead, (b) we know he is attempting to build WMD, and (c) we know that once he has them, it is going to be very difficult to do anything about his having them. So, I have three questions for you: (1) Do you disagree with (a), (b), or (c) above, and if so, what is your disagreement? (2) Is there ANY conceivable alternative to dealing with Saddam other than war (before you answer, please recall the negotiations between Baker & Aziz before the Gulf War, and the way they lied and stubbornly refused to stand down after moving against Kuwait)? (3) What is difficult about this decision? a) Survival. I have a problem with such biblical terms in the context of Saddam. Before Kuwait, he was our friend. When he attacked Iran we were his suppliers. When he attacked Kuwait, he was the enemy. He may want to destroy us...I don't know. I know that he can't and I also know that he fears us. b) Pakistan is a far more troubling place in my opinion. If the country falls in the hands of the many radical groups that thrive there, they are already nuclear enabled. What do you propose in Pakistan? c) Containment. It worked for many years with a far more formidable foe. You say that once he gets WMD, it will be difficult to do anything about it. But the administration has been telling us that he has had bio and chem weapons for years. And yet, he has not used them after years of sanctions and no flys...he did not even use them in Desert Storm when he was under attack. Gimme a break. This is FUD that the administration wants you to believe so it can push its agenda. The issue is oil. Lemme ask you a question or two. Who do you think would come to power in Iraq if or when we depose Saddam? Before you answer, think about who is in power in Kuwait after we liberated the country. Al