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: BCherry168 who wrote (46982)	9/26/2002 1:10:51 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Isn't it a bit odd what a difference 4 years can make? 4 years ago, Ritter was sure that Iraq had WMD, and that inspection needed to continue, and the WMD out of there... Today, he hasn't been near the place, except perhaps on Iraq's payroll, and his story is entire opposite. 4 years ago, Democrats were on the same page with Clinton plans to attack Iraq.... and yet Today, most of the Democrats are not at all on the same attach the rogue nation Iraq page as they were. One just has to wonder why.... 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.

To: BCherry168 who wrote (46982)	9/26/2002 3:44:13 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi BCherry168; Re: "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?" Not that I'm the one to defend the Democrats, but when you compare the 1998 military action with the regime change currently talked about you're comparing apples with oranges. In 1998, the attack consisted of a few bombs. What they're talking about now is a hell of a lot bigger. If all Bush wanted to do was to drop a bomb on Saddam and kill him I doubt many people would be complaining about it. The problem is that Bush is talking up military activities that will kill, in the very best case, many tens of thousands, and could possibly a hell of a lot more. Frankly, I think the 1998 policy was cowardly and to the disadvantage of the United States. It was cowardly to drop bombs on people who had not attacked the United States, who had no ability to attack the United States, and who couldn't fight back. The end effect was to change absolutely nothing in the area except to further piss off the locals. It was partly for the 1998 BS that we got hit with the WTC attack. If we simply let the Israelis, Saudi Arabians and Europeans take care of the messes in their own backyards (which they, not the US, contributed to the creation of) our twin towers would still be standing. No, the simple headed foreign policy of Clinton was to drop bombs on camels, but the result was a disaster for this country. Unfortunately, Bush's foreign policy is just as bad. Bush wants to (again!) attack the Iraqis who were not at all responsible for the WTC attacks. The result will be to further piss off the locals who were responsible, making it that much easier for Al Qaeda to recruit suicide killers. I say cut loose and let the whole lot fight for the worthless territory they're sitting on. We can buy oil on the free market, pay cash, not blood. -- Carl