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: tejek who wrote (149844)	8/16/2002 5:06:19 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579695

Ted, I have a question. You criticize Bush Sr for not taking care of Iraq. So I take this to mean you think it was necessary then to take care of Iraq and Bush Sr failed. Now you are criticizing Dubya for taking care of Iraq. Therefore I take this to mean you are against taking care of Iraq. What changed for you to think Iraq was a threat in the past but it is not now? Steve

To: tejek who wrote (149844)	8/16/2002 5:36:46 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1579695

Okay, are you are saying any country with WMD should be invaded? No, and the paragraph you quote gives no indication that I think that. There was three parts in that paragraph. WMDs are just one of them. I don't understand why you think we were looking for a way to avoid it back then, and now we are gung ho to attack. Because there was still a possible alternative then. There was a lot of hope that sanctions and inspections could work, but they didn't. It looks like the alternatives now are accepting a Saddam with nukes or invading. "There is a massive amount of proof that he was devloping WMD, and there is evidence of continued attempts." Where is it? Is it classified? No. Its been amply reported over the years. Its been in newspapers, network news broadcasts, books, magazine and journal articles, internet sites, reports from the weapons inspectors... I can't imagine how you could have avoided seeing it. It would be almost as dificult as not knowing about 9/11 or the Palestinian Israeli conflict. The UN is good enough to have an agreement for weapons inspections but its just a "figleaf" Its good enough to be a figleaf over that agreement, so Saddam didn't have to recognize the fact that the Americans agreed to quit destroying his army if he would agree to the inspections. Drop the UN out of the war and you get the same result. Drop the US out and you probably still have Iraqi tanks in Kuwait city and maybe in the oil fields in northern Saudi. No wonder we are being criticized by other nations. Like I said before, when you make up the rules as you go along, people get p*ssed off. The UN isn't part of the rules. Their is no world government or world police force. Nations are soverign. To the extent there is any rule other then the law of the jungle it is agreements between nations. Enforcing the cease fire agreement with Iraq would not violate any treaty that was signed and ratified by the US so it wouldn't be violating any rule or making up a new rule. I found a BBC report and a Gitmo Gazette article which talked about 4 suicides last month.....maybe a couple more things. Clearly, there's a news blackout. Sucidies happen in regular American prisons, does that mean that American prisons are unjust and violate human rights rutinely? The conditions there are very spartan with tight security but I don't see how those facts violate anyone's rights. The prisoners are well fed and there is no sign that they are abused. If there was such a news blackout how did you hear about the suicides? The most recent available Gitmo Gazette gtmo.net mentions nothing about suicides. Searching the bbc.co.uk site both manually, with Google, and with the sites own search engine doesn't come up with anything about suicides. I did find news.bbc.co.uk about attempted suicides but not of the prisoners who supposedly made the attempt caused much damage to either himself or anyone else. The Briton said last nite the conditions are purported to be squalid. - "Human rights groups and British parliamentarians have expressed concern at reports that prisoners were shackled and hooded as they were flown to the Camp X-Ray detention centre from Afghanistan. " - but do you think that there is anything abusive about such tight security when transporting prisoners who would die to kill one of their guards. They aren't kept that way, they where just shackled and hooded while they where being moved. Its also true that the prison is spartan but I still don't see how that becomes a human rights abuse. The Briton said last nite the conditions are purported to be squalid. squal·id Pronunciation Key (skwld) adj. 1.Dirty and wretched, as from poverty or lack of care. See Synonyms at dirty. 2.Morally repulsive; sordid: “the squalid atmosphere of intrigue, betrayal, and counterbetrayal” (W. Bruce Lincoln). I dobut you mean the 2nd definition so I will concentrate on the first. Every report out Gitmo is that the prisoners are fed well and given medical care. I can't see how their state is wretched. Of course they have no freedom but thats normal for prisoners and I that you would want to give them their freedom. I did note that we've allowed the Red Cross to set up an office in the camp so I suspect it can't be too bad. And some politicans and news people have been allowed to visit as well. The protests I have heard seem to be along the lines of the fact that the living conditions are spartan and we move them with hoods and shackles. I personally don't have a problem with either of those things in this situation. Yes they don't get cable TV, soft beds, or access to recreation facilities but I'm not really broken up about these facts. Tim