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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (46978)	9/25/2002 9:27:32 PM
From: BCherry168	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Bilow, both political parties believe that Iraq is a threat, and that military action is needed to thwart the threat posed. I am having a hard time understanding what the debate is. Perhaps its because one party bases it perception of the threat upon the politics. Naw, Democrats wouldn't be that low, would they? Tuesday, September 10, 2002By Carl Cameron WASHINGTON — Democrats are expressing reluctance and sometimes outright opposition to President Bush's plans for action against Iraq, even though they were on board with former President Clinton's plans to attack the rogue nation four years ago."His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us," Clinton said in February 1998. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act. More Information• Video: Clinton Comments on Iraq in 1998"I know the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well," he added.The words came within weeks of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, co-sponsored by Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle and a dozen other Democrats.The resolution condemned "in the strongest possible terms" Iraq's continued threat to international peace and security, and urged then-President Clinton to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end it's weapons of mass destruction programs." Among the Democratic co-sponsors were Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Max Cleland of Georgia, Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, Bob Graham of Florida and John Kerry of Massachusetts. These days, they and other Democrats express doubt and reluctance to use force, but four years ago, Democrats in the House and Senate got downright hawkish, advocating an attack if Saddam Hussein did not comply with every detail of all the United Nations' weapons sanctions."If not, it's back to business. It is the use of force. It is a swift response militarily and by whatever other means may be necessary," Daschle said in a speech in late February 1998."I think that it is going to have to be more than a mere thump, as we say in Missouri. It's going to have to be a major, major strike," said Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton. Congress never voted on the resolution urging force because Iraqi President Saddam Hussein promised again to comply with the U.N. sanctions at the last minute. He broke that promise only a few days later when he threw the U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq altogether. After that event four years ago, Daschle said that "if nothing changes, the use of force at some point would be inevitable." But four days ago, Daschle sounded a different tune."What has changed over the course of the last 10 years that brings this country to the belief that it has to act in a pre-emptive fashion?" What has changed by most accounts is that after four years of continued weapons development, Saddam is even more dangerous than he was when Daschle was advocating military action. What also has changed is the resident of the White House, a Republican president, who maintains very high popularity ratings.<< foxnews.com

To: Bilow who wrote (46978)	9/26/2002 12:02:14 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Carl, I'm sorry....you pontificate, and yet don't really give your reasons, or proof, as John is wont to say. For instance... (1) Iraq (or Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi Baathist party) is not a threat to the US. What on earth makes you think this....? Especially when people of both parties think the opposite? Have you proof of your statement? Or is it just your "feeling".... If it is your "feeling" it is certainly OK to state that....Do you have better information than the US intelligence agencies, and that of Great Britian, and most probably Israel as well?? The biggest threat that the US faces is Islamic fundamentalism which is in complete opposal to Saddam Hussein and all he stands for. How is terror of one sort the opposite of terror of another sort??? (Though even that threat is not a significant one. The USSR, with thousands of megaton nuclear weapons, was a significant threat and we didn't start a war with them.) Doyou suppose that each the US and the USSR held each other at bay with mutual weapon systems? And the US never has seemed to want additional territory. And that was just your first paragraph..... I certainly do state my opinions....but I say they are just that. You state your opinions like they are facts, without proof they are.