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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (19573)	8/21/2002 5:42:11 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Overly pessimistic, I think. The Bush administration isn't suicidal. A lot of Republican support they need has evaporated. My guess is that there won't be a war. And I'm sure I will be reminded of this post if I'm wrong. :-)

To: E who wrote (19573)	8/21/2002 7:30:28 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 21057

The war would be illegal, the group argues. The dispute with Iraq over weapons of mass destruction rightly belongs to the UN, not the U.S. There isn't any "illegal" when your dealing with events between countries because there is no world government. The UN is not sovereign over any country. To the extent that "international law" makes any sense it is a series of agreements between countries. The US would not be violating any treaty provisions, in fact it would be enforcing an agreement. Iraq violated the case fire, we agreed to stop fighting in exchange for Iraq accepting these terms. They renege on their side and we are no longer bound by our side, the war continues. • Our allies in the region oppose the war. Kuwait itself has been mending fences with Iraq, which has agreed to respect Kuwait's sovereignty. Kuwait is opposed to a new attack by the U.S. True, and a source for some concern. The lack of support makes an attack harder and can have other consequences. We don't actually need support from Kuwait or Saudi but it would be a lot better if we had it. • There is nothing to show that the government of Iraq had links to Al Qaeda or other anti-American terrorists. Not complelty true there is some evidence of some connections, but not strong ones and not enough to justify an attack on Iraq. However its something of a strawman arguement as that isn't the proposed justification. The attack is justfied by the violation of the case fire agreement and by concern of a possible agressive Iraq with WMD. • None of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi, no major figure in Al Qaeda is Iraqi, and no Al Qaeda funding has been traced to Iraq. Basically the same as the last point, except this time stated in a more limited way that makes it more accurate. After the 1991 war, all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems were destroyed. Very unlikely, in any case 1991 was 11 years ago. They have rebuilt a lot since then. The IAEA inspectors were led around by Saddam's henchmen and suprise suprise they didn't find anything... • "Iraq's current armed forces are at barely one-third their pre-war strength," Maybe but it is still strong enough to be a threat. Esp. if Saddam gets nukes. • Iraq is not a military threat to its neighbors, most of which have sophisticated air-defense systems. BS. Without heavy US involvment Kuwait would fall about as quick as it did last time, and Saudi can't fight off the Iraqi army either. Tim Tim