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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elpolvo who wrote (5031)	8/22/2002 12:46:29 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

We're attacking Iraq, please don't tell! By Ron Charles Commentary > Opinion from the August 22, 2002 edition The Christian Science Monitor csmonitor.com From: Director of CIA To: All Secret Agents (you know who you are) Re: Secret War Plans (shhhhhh!) The President (code name: George W.) is increasingly alarmed about leaks concerning our plans to attack a certain country in the Middle East (rhymes with "I pack"). Despite our best efforts – including wide distribution of Cap'n Crunch Decoder Rings – rumors of our intentions to change the regime of S.H. (use the ring, use the ring!) continue to appear in the press. (Plans to topple the NYT will be discussed in our next midnight meeting at the Big Oak Tree. George W. to bring s'mores.) What's more troubling, I saw on CNN (Cable [something?] Network) that members of Congress are openly debating our war plans. We cannot and will not tolerate these threats to democracy. Effective immediately – or when the little hand reaches the 9 – all agents should institute the following top-secret precautions: 1) Remove "We're Comin' to Get YOU, Saddam!" bumper stickers from all undercover automobiles and trucks. 2) When making obscene phone calls to the Iraqi Royal Palace, put a cloth over the mouthpiece to disguise your voice. 3) Discreetly float decoy stories about US plans to attack France to confuse the enemy. (IMPORTANT: Do not actually attack France without prior approval!) 4) Agents who pose as Middle East experts should remove their CIA pocket protectors when appearing on Sunday morning TV shows. (And when sending thank-you notes to the interviewer, sign your name in invisible ink.) By following these simple precautions, we can significantly reduce the level of preattack transparency and preserve the all-important element of surprise. Signed, XXX (Agents who do not receive a hard copy of this memo can read it on the FOX News Network at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m.) ___________________________________ • Ron Charles is the Monitor's book editor and an occasional satirist.

To: elpolvo who wrote (5031)	8/22/2002 7:42:55 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 89467

Here we are playing hawks and doves again Online Special: Molly Ivins By MOLLY IVINS Creators Syndicate Aug. 21, 2002, 6:48PM chron.com AUSTIN -- Here we are playing hawks and doves again on the matter on Iraq -- war or no war? -- with particularly peppy exchanges from our more excitable brethren on the right concerning "appeasement" and lack of patriotism on the part of anyone who isn't ready to nuke Baghdad now. Bubba and Joe Bob have a question: "Why don't we git Oh-sama Bin first?" I bring this up because it seems to me what the right wing is fond of describing as "the media elites" are so absorbed in their own tong warfare, they quite forget the American people have a great deal of uncommon good sense. Does life in Washington, D.C., actually resemble an endless round of "Crossfire," or does it just seem that way from the boonies? At last count, we were already involved in military actions in seven countries, counting Colombia, which is either a different set of terrorists or a civil war. Seems like that's a lot on our plate now. Under the new Bush doctrine of "unilaterally determined pre-emptive self-defense," we get to go around attacking anyone we want without provocation. Not so much as a "Remember the Maine!" or a Tonkin Gulf resolution. Did anybody ever get to vote on "unilaterally determined pre-emptive self-defense?" According published reports, the administration is also contemplating the use of earth-penetrating nuclear weapons in Iraq. Whatever happened to the "no first-strike policy?" -- did anyone ever get to vote on that? Has anyone studied the consequences of violating it? Hard to find a soul in this country who doesn't think getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a good idea, but there are lots of people wondering why it's up to us to do it, and also asking, "What happens then?" Given our experience with George W. as governor, that's a particularly relevant question. Not that it's on par with a nuclear first-strike, but Texas now faces a $7 billion deficit and rising. As governor, Bush inherited a surplus, pushed through two big tax cuts and left virtually nothing in the Rainy Day Fund, so now we're not just broke, but in the hole. As witness the case of the charter schools in Texas, the man does have a habit of coming up with not-very-bright ideas and then wandering off to leave someone else to clean up the mess. Speaking of cleaning up messes, how smart is it to get involved in a war with no allies? Canada announced Tuesday it won't support a war. That means, among other things, we have to pay for all of it ourselves, unlike the Persian Gulf War. Our fiscal house is not in good order now. Bush and Congress both blew the surplus in record time and will leave us with $742 billion and rising added to the national debt by the end of the decade. That's without a war. Joseph Nye argues in his new book, "The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone," that anti-Americanism thrives on the perception that we don't give a rat's behind how the rest of the world feels about anything. That's the famous "arrogance" for which we get criticized. On that count, a war with Iraq could play right into terrorist hands. It's apparent that our ally Saudi Arabia has a far stronger connection to Sept. 11 than our enemy Saddam Hussein, so attacking Hussein makes us look like hypocrites willing to sell out our foreign policy for oil. That we'd also have to kill a whole of lot of innocent Iraqis (next guy who uses the words "precision bombing" has to eat them) should count for more than it probably does with all those hard-nosed Bush foreign policy advisers who have never seen war. The ideological struggle over foreign policy -- unilateralism versus internationalism -- is in danger of becoming one of those futile -ism fights, where people get so engaged in putting down their opponents, they lose sight of reality. We used to give an award for it in the Texas Legislature: "If He Votes Yes, Then I Vote No." It's smarter to stick with what works. Life is not "Crossfire" -- there are more than two sides. So is there a better way? Nye thinks there is. Since terrorism flourishes in the "failed states," why not support international efforts to get these wretched places on their feet? There was a poll of foreign affairs experts and scholars at the end of the 20th century, and it found widespread agreement that the single most effective American foreign policy effort of the century was the Marshall Plan. Seems to me the lesson of Sept. 11 is that we cannot afford to ignore what the rest of the world thinks. ------------------------------------ To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the web page at www.creators.com.

To: elpolvo who wrote (5031)	8/29/2002 5:47:17 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

war's been obsolete ever since we built enough nuclear power to blow any country in the world off the face of the earth. we have the ultimate self defense. All of those nukes didn't help us a bit on 9/11.... Nor will they help us if we're biologically or chemically attacked. We don't have a nation we can claim is "guilty" of attacking us.. just a bunch of non-state actors committing terrorism. if we're attacked by individuals unsanctioned by any government... that's a matter of international law being broken and an international law enforcement team should hunt them down, arrest them and bring them to trial. Who's legal statutes do we use?? Iraq's? China's? Europe's?? The USC here in the states?? Look at how long it required to have the Lockerbie bombers arrested and tried.... And with an international police force, must come an international government under who's laws all nations must abide... And if that law is the UN, then we'll countries like Syria (which sits on the security council) enforcing the law... That's kinda like having Al Capone serve as the Secretary of the Treasury... Hawk