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 (191937)	9/13/2002 6:29:34 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

That pretty much destroys the rest of your argument about how much of a threat Hussein poses. not even close. poising the water supply in la doesn't hold a candle to bringing down large parts of europs to their knees. it is still an issue of concern for the MILLIONS of folks that can be impacted. for you to suggest otherwise surprises me. He's been meekly accepting the terror raining down on his air defense installations for the past 11 years without a single act of revenge. that doesn't not mean he hasn't been planning on revenge. apparently, you think this is unreasonable. therefore, you'd be willing to give up all you have IF he does support a terror act on the us. btw, your argument isn't ritter's. ritter's ONLY argument is that we shouldn't attack b/c we don't know. he doesn't say saddam isn't a threat or isn't close to having serious destructive capability. he doesn't say that at all. he just says we don't KNOW it. We've given him abundant justification to respond, but Hussein is not at all a suicidal madman. He knows that if he were to attack the U.S. directly that it would be the end of him and all the other Tikritis. he's approaching an age where he may face death... he is sick enough to out with a "bang." you know what i mean, too. to assume otherwsie is naive. the assumption may be right. or not. i'm not willing to take the risk. So, from the evidence, he seems rational. nope. many insane people avoid getting their butt kicked by not instigating issues with folks who can kick theior butt. your definition of rational surprises me, too. many serial killers attack smaller people. they don't go onto a marine base and try and kidnap and kill a marine during live target practice. doesn't make 'em sane, ray. As does GWB, in a very twisted way, attempting to propagandize a nation into a war frenzy, which will result in the U.S. military being used to supplant the Russians and French in business partnerships with the Iraqi regime for the Iraqi oil. Bush's plan appears to be to overthrow Huessein, install a puppet like we did in Afghanistan, void the existing Iraq contracts with non-U.S. oil companies and hand a windfall over to Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Unocal, etc. All neatly paid for by the bamboozled American taxpayer. you don't have any evidence of much of what your wrote. so, you need evidence to accuse iraq but you need no evidence to accuse the president. that is not intellectually consistent. btw, i don't support bush. he is trying to frame the argument to support his position. the question is whether he is right or not in being concerned about iraq. i don't know. however, there is evidence (ex mistress of saddam) that said she heard about nerve gas and moving chemical facilities in the night. like i said, saddam made his bed attacking kuwait. he made his bed by not allowing for inspections. he made his bed poisoning and starving his people. you do that stuff and super powers that lost 3k people get nervous. i am. not based on spin. based on a psycho sob running iraq. Here's an excellent refutation of the miserably disingenuous speech that Bush delivered, deadpan, to the UN yesterday. The boys in the PEOC office must have been howling with glee at this tall tale. again, i'm not into the political side. bush does have an agenda. perhaps his motives aren't the best - or maybe they are. the bottom line is saddam is dangerous and you KNOW IT. that is why you didn't pledge, before god, to give up all that you own IF saddam supports an attack on the us. that is very telling, imho.