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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (41466)	9/1/2002 11:51:24 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>>Kuwait breaks ranks on Saddam By Jack Fairweather in Kuwait (Filed: 02/09/2002) Kuwait became the first Arab state yesterday to signal support for a US-led military coalition against Iraq, in marked contrast to the caution shown by other countries in the region. The Kuwaiti foreign minister, Sheikh Mohammed Sabah Salem al-Sabah, told The Telegraph: "While Saddam Hussein continues to keep Kuwaiti prisoners of war, and continues to televise threats against Kuwait, we consider the war against Iraq to have never ended." The sheikh's comments serve as encouragement for a Washington administration struggling to convince the international community of the need for military action. Saudi Arabia, which America used as a base during the 1991 Gulf War to drive Iraqi invaders from Kuwait, has so far refused to open its territory to American forces for a new war against Baghdad. A Kuwaiti government official said: "If America asks for support Kuwait will give it. I expect the same response from all Gulf states. There may be the need publicly to be anti-war, but under-the-table deals are being struck." Twelve years after the Iraqis invaded, Kuwait again looks like a prosperous Gulf emirate, but the trauma caused by the seven-month occupation remains, and with it the growing sense that the only way to achieve regional stability is through military action to remove the Saddam regime. A spokesman for the deputy prime minister's office said: "The Kuwaiti people are tired of living under the constant threat of aggression from Iraq. "Those people who say that sending weapons inspectors into Iraq may be a solution to the current crisis are not those who are living within reach of his missiles and his chemical weapons. How can we feel safe with Saddam Hussein next door?" Dr Masaad Shlash, of the department of sociology at Kuwait University, a prisoner in Iraq after the invasion, said: "Look at Saddam's treatment of his own people. He's the closest thing the Middle East has to Hitler."<< telegraph.co.uk

To: Ilaine who wrote (41466)	9/2/2002 1:49:40 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Saddam Hussein didn't attack Washington DC. Al Qaeda did. They are not the same thing. You will notice, as well, that Al Qaeda did not attack with an Iraqi-supplied chemical or biological weapon. Why do you suppose that is? If Saddam was willing to supply them with one, don't you figure they would have used one? I suspect that he has not supplied Al Qaeda with WMD for the same reason that the other WMD-armed hostile powers that we've faced have never used them against us: the certain knowledge that if the weapon is traced back to him, he will be destroyed. The risk exceeds the reward by a huge margin, and while Saddam may be cruel and vicious, he is well known to have a high regard for his own skin. Now ask yourself: if Saddam knows that we are going to destroy him anyway, why shouldn't he turn over everything he has to Osama? If people know they will be attacked anyway, deterrence - a policy of proven effectiveness - loses all its value. So when I see Dubya, Cheney, Ashcroft, and others who do live here trying frantically to take down Saddam, my thought is not that their goal is feathering their own nests or destroying civil liberties, I think they're trying to save themselves, their loved ones, and people like me and my children. I don't believe that an attack on and occupation of Iraq will make another serious terrorist attack any less likely. It might make such an attack more likely. I would like to believe that the world is a simple place, and that the sledgehammer is an effective weapon against the anopheles mosquito or the tsetse fly. Can't quite make myself do it, though. And try as I may, I can't make myself see a war on Iraq as the logical next step in a war against terrorism. It's easy for you not to give a shit because you live in the Philippines, so it's all academic. I almost want to write "LOL", but I don't use those abbreviations. I live in a country that the State Dept. says is a place to be avoided, a place where Americans are likely to be targeted by terrorists, a place where Americans have been shot and beheaded by Al Qaeda-linked terrorists, a place where American troops were recently deployed in an unsuccessful attempt to destroy an Al Qaeda ally. And you say that I'm not threatened? Please tell my parents that; it might reassure them.