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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (7048)	9/22/2002 2:45:50 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

miami.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (7048)	9/22/2002 3:08:01 AM
From: jjkirk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Re: You are obviously on somebody's payroll. Well, yes, Ray. Inter alia, I'm on your* payroll and I thank you for it....Ain't America great!...jj*

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (7048)	9/22/2002 5:47:53 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

<<...The most unpleasant and unhelpful aspect of this "debate" is the implication that anyone who expresses serious doubts about this venture is unpatriotic -- and it often comes from the same people who spent eight years eaten alive with Clinton hatred. Being patriotic doesn't mean agreeing with the government. The most fundamental American right is to not agree with the government and to raise Cain about it.>> dfw.com This is a passage from the latest column by Molly Ivins -- She and some of the other leading columnists (like Maureen Dowd) can really get at what's on people's minds...they can also motivate their audience to see humor in serious situations AND challenge readers to start to ask tough questions...=) Here's the entire Ivins Column... Posted on Sun, Sep. 22, 2002 The Iraq debate gets curiouser and curiouser By Molly Ivins dfw.com Don't you just hate it when the bad guys agree to do what we want them to? If that's not a good reason to go in and take out Saddam, name one. But our Fearless Leader, not one to be deterred from war merely by getting what he wants, promptly moved the goalposts and issued a new list of demands that Iraq must meet, including paying reparations to Kuwait. If you step back and look at this debate, it just gets stranger and stranger. For one thing, all the evidence is that the administration has already made up its mind and we're going into Iraq this winter. President Bush went to the United Nations and demanded that it back him; he's going to Congress to demand that it back him; and there it is. This is not a debate -- it's Bush in his "You're either with us or against us" mode. It is not a discussion of whether invading Iraq is either necessary or wise. If you add up all the reasons that the administration has advanced for going after Saddam, the only thing left to say is: "We need to take out Pervez Musharraf right now!" Musharraf has destroyed democracy in his country; he's backing terrorists in India, our democratic ally; his CIA was hand-in-glove with al Qaeda; his military is riddled with militant Islamists; his madrassas teach hatred of the West; his heroes are Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler; and he not only has nukes -- he's threatened to use them. Whereas, the Islamists hate Saddam; there's no evidence that he's connected to al Qaeda; he's broke; and his army is one-fifth the size it was the last time we beat him in a couple of days. True, we know he has biological weapons because we gave them to him (see the depressing report in last week's Newsweek : "How We Helped Create Saddam"), and probably chemical weapons as well. The one thing sure to make him use them is an invasion; and frankly, he's likely to lob them at the Israelis. Do we have a right to make them hostages? The man is certainly a repellent specimen, but there are lots of those around. It must be acknowledged that this is not a situation of moral clarity. Pretending that there's no moral ambiguity here is a profound disservice to both truth and reason. We have done real harm in our past dealings with Saddam -- among other things, we have now double-crossed the Kurds three times (a sextuple-cross?) Not a pretty record. The downside to taking on Saddam is not so much getting him out as what happens next. Diplomacy is often likened to chess -- you have to be able to think several moves ahead. There's no evidence that the administration has thought past Step One. Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a Republican libertarian, has come up with an impressive list of 35 questions that need to be considered. As several commentators have noted, one irony of this situation is that the only real discussion of this campaign is among Republicans. (With apologies to Rep. Denis Kucinich and Sen. John Kerry, gutless Democrats abound.) Reducing the discussion to sound bites of "chicken hawks" and "appeasers" is of no help at all. A post-Saddam Iraq will be a mess (Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites fighting), and adding that much more instability to the Middle East is not smart. Bush claims that he wants to further democracy in the region, but every indication is that friendly regimes would be replaced by Islamists after a revolution. The old problem, of course -- the root of the resentment -- is what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. We are held to be just as responsible as they are by the Arab world. The smart way to go after Saddam is to wait at least until an Arab-Israeli settlement is reached, and that is a do-able deal. Instead, we've let Ariel Sharon inflame the situation. More settlements on the West Bank -- now there's a genius move. (Naturally, equal credit to the suicide bombers.) Saddam is notoriously tricky when it comes to weapons inspection. By agreeing to the return of inspectors, he has effectively agreed to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1248, from 1999, which sets a lower threshold for weapons inspections, including delays and complications. Seems to me that the first step should be to get the Security Council to beef up that resolution, even if the French won't accept an "and if you don't …" clause. Bush is the "if you don't." The most unpleasant and unhelpful aspect of this "debate" is the implication that anyone who expresses serious doubts about this venture is unpatriotic -- and it often comes from the same people who spent eight years eaten alive with Clinton hatred. Being patriotic doesn't mean agreeing with the government. The most fundamental American right is to not agree with the government and to raise Cain about it. I've always liked Sen. Carl Schurz's definition of patriotism at the turn of the 18th century: "My country right or wrong. When right, to keep right; when wrong, to put right."