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 : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (191935)	9/13/2002 5:58:47 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 436258

ray, the issue is very simple. w/o REAL inspections, our first evidence of a nuke or chemical weapons may be in manhattan or in la's water supply. some folks aren't willing to take that risk, even if it is low. others are more willing to take that risk. ray, are you willing to give up all your earthly possession, ie, clear out your bank account, sell your home, etc) and give it to the victims of an iraqi sponsored attack on us soil IF it happens? i'm not b/c i can see the very real possibility of it occurring within 5 years. i also don't see a leap in logic there, either. will ritter work 60 hours a week the rest of his life to support the newly created widows IF saddam attacks the us? nope. he won't. he'll just say, "but there was no evidence! how could i have known? don't blame me!" saddam is a mad man. i have no compassion for him or his ruling class. my view of hitler would've been the same. thank goodness saddam doesn't have that much power. he failed to allow for inspections and now must make solid efforts to comply or else i will support removing his brand of evil from power.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (191935)	9/13/2002 6:49:48 PM
From: Follies	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

maybe this will change your mind.... The United States last week delivered a secret ultimatum to Baghdad, a warning not to use non-conventional weapons on any account in the coming conflict. DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence sources have learned that a secret high-level emissary entered Iraq under cover to put Baghdad on notice that if non-conventional weapons were wielded by Iraq, the US would not hesitate to level its cities with a nuclear bomb. Washington acted after discovering that Iraq had smuggled two or three nuclear devices at least into the United States for detonation by sleeper cells planted by Iraqi intelligence. ... bushcountry.org

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (191935)	9/13/2002 10:32:59 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

I thought your link was crap. Most of his argumentive style consists of changing the subject to another incident or another country. The issue is Iraq's compliance. Iraq was defeated and hostilities ceased according to terms agreed upon. They should provide assurances that they aren't a threat to their neighboring states and to refrain from exacerbating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here is a list of the UN resolutions that Iraq has to adhere to. iraqfoundation.org It's disingenuous to think that you're going to be able to rely on only sources outside the intelligence services. You need antagonistic sources to do a safety inspection. I don't know that Iraq is any near-term threat, but they need to force the UN to enforce their previous resolutions re: Iraq. I got tired after refuting the first several points in your link. (1) re: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Iraq tried to extort $ 10 B from Kuwait prior to the invasion. See Tariq Aziz's remarks in the interview. pbs.org It wasn't the first time. Iraq had previously taken territory from Kuwait in the 70s. lcweb2.loc.gov@field(DOCID+iq0023) You might also check the following web site regarding oil prices. At the time before mid-1990, oil prices were rising for over a year. Perhaps, the author meant that Iraq attacked Kuwait for driving prices down four years earlier. wtrg.com The low price point also coincides with the end of the Iran-Iraq war. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait forced down the price of oil to starve Iran and Iraq of funds to keep fighting. If anything, the attack by Iraq appears to be an attempt at retribution against Kuwait and to wipe off the $ 15 billion they owed Kuwait. 2. re: imminent threat to Saudi Arabia If you read the above interview on frontline, Powell admitted that the Iraqi buildup didn't appear to be an immediate threat to Saudi Arabia. I think action was justified to roll back Iraq to its original borders. Economic sanctions and positioning a large number of foreign troops in Saudi Arabia wouldn't have worked either. We've seen how little economic sanctions have done to dislodge Saddam with just 20% of the world's oil reserves. We've also seen how sensitive the Middle East is to the stationing of US troops in large numbers. 3. re: Kurdish uprising and appeasement This isn't particularly relevant to whether Saddam is an external threat. The Washington Post article "Did Saddam Snooker Schwarzkopf?" covered this story. Based on misinformation, Bush assumed that Saddam would put down the rebellion, and then be overthrown in a military coup. Bush should've assumed that Saddam would carry out a purge of the military after the war. fas.org 4. re: UN SR 688 The reason it goes ignored is that troops aren't sent in to enforce it. Subsequent UN or NATO actions since have involved UN troops or peacekeepers on the ground. At this point, I got tired of correcting his piece I gave up.