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 : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (705)	9/13/2002 11:46:35 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Respond to of 7689

Here's a letter to the editor that appeared in one of the local rags this morning: Case for War Already Made Have you ever seen a talking doll that got stuck on a single line when it got old? "Hi, I’m a bear", "You’re tickling my belly!" etc.? Well, the U.S. Senate has a useless old doll that’s stuck on a single voice chip too - the Senator Daschle doll is stuck repeating the mindless mantra "The President needs to make his case for war." The case for war is made every day in the news. Every American knows that this is a necessary and just cause, but since Senator Ostrich doesn’t qualify as much of an American, I’ll spell it out for him one more time (Sen. Daschle, please read slowly, so you can understand…) The US is not "contemplating going to war" with Iraq. We have been constantly at war with Iraq for over a decade; we’re just contemplating escalation. Congress joined virtually the entire world in approving war on Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait. After we pulverized their military and forced them to withdraw from Kuwait, a ceasefire went into effect, under which Iraq must allow UN weapons inspectors, must not attack its own people or others, and must not acquire or seek weapons of mass destruction. Along with our major allies, the US has consistently patrolled no-fly zones over Iraq for ten years, with occasional skirmishes and bombings as required. We have effectively liberated whole regions from Saddam’s control already. So, the Gulf War never completely ended. The White House therefore still has Congressional authority, to prosecute this war to a conclusion at last. The evidence has long been publicly accepted that Saddam Hussein’s government has violated the agreements of the ceasefire virtually nonstop. He thwarted the UN arms inspectors until they gave up in disgust, and he rebuilt his war machine, seeking at every turn to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and atomic. Before the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein went to war with Iran, then with Kuwait, both unprovoked and unjustifiable attacks on fellow Muslim countries - wars in which millions died. He has gassed and poisoned tens of thousands of his own people, especially the Kurds of northern Iraq. There is no doubt that if given a moment’s chance, he would engage in such actions again. Like so many military dictators throughout history, he believes (perhaps rightly) that his best chance of job security is through prosecuting eternal war. Both US and foreign intelligence have clearly established that Saddam Hussein has directly funded and otherwise encouraged many groups of international terrorists throughout his reign. He funded an unsuccessful assassination plot on the first President Bush, and his operatives are known to have had at least one summit meeting with Mohammed Atta in the year prior to the 9-11 attacks. Saddam Hussein has long been one of the most vocal agitators of anti-Semitism in the Arab world, consistently calling for the destruction of the nation of Israel. He even tried to bring Israel into the Gulf War by launching ballistic missiles (Soviet-era Scud ballistic missiles, thankfully non-nuclear), at the non-combatant Israelis, in a futile effort to provoke their entrance and thus disrupt our alliance. He will attack Israel again and again, if given the chance. Saddam Hussein is one of the principal causes of the horrible suicide bombings that kill Israeli civilians on an almost daily basis. His program of paying a $25,000 reward to the families of suicide bombers prompts nihilistic young Palestinian fanatics (kept in poverty by Arafat’s destructive policies) to blow up restaurants and shopping malls in Israeli cities. The program has become a perverse reverse life insurance policy - whereas normal life insurance is voided by suicide, Saddam’s plan only pays out for suicide! The sheer evil of this horrific program alone should be sufficient to prove that regime change in Iraq is a just goal, by whatever means necessary. As the leaders of the free world, only we, the United States, have both the authority and the ability to bring this untenable situation to its proper conclusion. The justice of our cause is clear to all but the most partisan politicians, blinded by an upcoming general election or by their own presidential aspirations. Iraq once showed great promise to become a peaceful and gradually westernizing nation, in the mold of Turkey, before the bloodthirsty and destructive regime of Saddam Hussein turned the clock backward. Once Saddam is out of power, and the nation is split into independent and democratic parts, they will cease to be a threat to the world and to themselves. How can anyone who claims to be decent and compassionate want to postpone that day?

To: Poet who wrote (705)	9/13/2002 1:08:33 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7689

Madeleine Albright basically agrees that we should compel Iraq's compliance, by force if necessary. The only questions are when, how, and at what level of priority. I agree with her that we should deal with Iraq. I would prefer to have it happen sooner rather than later. I suppose there were those in the 1930's who said we should deal with Hitler's flouting of the Treaty of Versailles too, but in due course and after letting diplomacy run its course. Diplomacy with Saddam is useless - he has no useful concept of the word "agreement". I agree that we shouldn't lose focus on Al Qaeda while dealing with Iraq. I don't agree with her implicit message that attacking Iraq requires that we lose focus on Al Qaeda. We can and should do both. Otherwise the message is that we can only deal with one threat at a time, so while we are otherwise occupied, have at it. Killing rats requires persistence. I think Bush's message was clear, and I agree with him.