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 : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (1222)	9/15/2002 7:15:38 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

THE INTERNET: THE PEOPLE'S VOICE len, Re: FCC's blatant disregard for the will of Congress - It does look sinister. Right now, Clear Channel, which tolerates no dissenting views, controls 1,300 radio stations across America. They have undoubtedly paid a big bribe to Mike Powell to get him to go along with their scheme to further consolidate the industry and end free speech. Here's an important list of questions that needs to be widely circulated Please forward to your network: Message 17993434 IRAQ: Questions That Patriotic and Concerned American Citizens Must Ask: HAS THE U.S.A. slipped into being "The Evil Empire?" Some fear we have....... [[Source: Unknown, but attributed to Rep. Ron Paul (R. TX)]] "...Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won't be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war. 1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate? 2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat? 3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections? 4. Is it not true that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation? 5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq? 6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq,s links to terrorism? 7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place? 8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds? 9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies? 10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses" 11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States? 12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US- and isn't this what bin Laden wanted? 13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country? 14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war? 15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq? 16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died? 17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States? 18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there? 19. Iraq's alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty? 20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad? 21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations? 22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe? 23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president? 24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village? 25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein,s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported? 26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy? 27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq? 28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals? 29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted? 30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense? 31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change? 32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war? 33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory? 34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban? 35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?..."

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (1222)	9/15/2002 8:10:34 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

SATIRE: US COMMEMORATES 9-11 WITH "MURDEROUS FORCE" thebrainstrust.co.uk US COMMEMORATES 9-11 WITH "MURDEROUS FORCE" President George Bush made a State of the Union Address today commemorating the "honest American lives lost on 9-11" and launching a set of worldwide memorials to honour their names and celebrate "the American ideals for which they died: Peace, Love and Freedom" Making a killing? America is a peace loving nation and I feel it appropriate to mark the passing of 9-11 by seeking out those who oppose peace and smashing them to Kingdom come," explained the President. "We shall celebrate the lives of our peace loving citizens so callously cut down on 9-11 by a launching full scale total invasion of Iraq. We shall be starting the invasion by simultaneously launching 1500 long-range missiles into the heart of Baghdad. By using the latest technology we will be able to carve out the words "Remember the Glorious Dead" in letters one mile wide across the centre of the country. This fitting tribute to the US victims will be one of only two man-made monuments visible from space. At least, it will be unless China gets any funny ideas about retaliation or condemnation. Should they wish to engage in such petty gestures, I simply remind my Asian friends that we have plenty of other missiles that we can 're-deploy' in the direction of the Great Wall at the twist of a tiny dial." "psychopathic killers" Mr Bush however explained that the US would not embark on a reckless adventure and was aware that casualties would be inevitable. "Regrettably it is not possible to drop more bombs on a single country than it has inhabitants, without sustaining some casualties, but our strategists predict that these will mainly be Iraqi citizens and we are sure that most Iraqis would gladly lay down their lives to support the American ideals of peace and freedom. And although we mourn all who die in war, we feel that the world should remember that Iraqis have cravenly allowed this madman Saddam and his highly-trained army of vicious psychopathic killers to rule over them without a hint of dissent. Even after we gave them every opportunity to rise up after the Gulf war and offered them the warmest words of encouragement they simply fell over at the merest whiff of poison gas." "held indefinitely" Mr Bush went on to celebrate the triumph of Freedom by launching a new set of "Freedom Laws". "These will be a set of new statutes and minor amendments to the constitution that will further reinforce the rights of the majority to live in peace and prosperity in this country," he explained. "By removing the unnecessary red tape that forbids terrorist suspects being held without trial we can ensure that these evil-doing folk can be removed from our streets and held indefinitely in military establishments. Only when they have seen sense and agreed to confess their terrorist ways can they be released to the justice system and have their trials shown under the public spotlight on television." As Mr Bush completed his address, he asked his fellow Americans to join with him in a short prayer of condemnation of religious fanatics who pervert the words of their faith to justify their acts of oppression. "Dear Lord, we ask that you allow us to prevail over those who oppose us and our land of peace. You have shown us, Lord, that you favour us above all others, for everyday I look down at our sacred dollar, see the words 'In God we Trust' and know that our country has been truly blessed. Amen."