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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (152335)	9/25/2002 10:31:53 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573076

Suppose the inspectors are allowed back in, with complete freedom of movement, and they don't find anything. Would you still be for attack against Iraq? The bar is a little higher for me; I believe in the Bush administration's position that disarmament is the goal, NOT weapons inspections. Even better, regime change. But I think if we could be assured of disarmament, that's good enough for me and Saddam can keep his job. The problem is, from what I can gather from the pros, "complete freedom of movement" isn't sufficient. The Iraqis have to be totally cooperative, DISCLOSING THE LOCATIONS of WMD and facilities. Apparently, for the inspections to be successful, the Iraqis must willingly say, "Here is what we have and where we have it". Then the inspections can proceed. Saddam agreed to this level of inspections when the ceasefire was executed. But there was never significant compliance with this agreement, and no enforcement by the UN or the United States throughout the 90s. A couple months ago, I would have said, "Yes, if we get inspectors in, that's good enough." But having subsequently heard a number of these inspectors/experts speak in detail, including David Kaye, Richard Butler, and others, it is clear that Saddam is NOT going to comply to a level that will provide for disarmament. Accordingly, I think war is probably necessary. And while I understand the liberal position that we are expanding significantly the terms under which we go to war, I believe it is necessary for our own protection. A lot changed on 9/11, and while I still don't think we should be an aggressor nation, I think we must be more aggressive in defense of OUR nation -- which may mean moving proactively against potential threats. I was a teenager during Vietnam, and do not look forward to a protracted war with dead Americans coming home. I don't believe we'll see nearly as many American kids killed in the war against terrorism as there were Americans killed on 9/11. But I don't believe these liberals and college students who are protesting today fully comprehend what is at stake. It is, to me, mind-boggling that the same liberals who were against nuclear proliferation can be so blind as to want to allow Saddam to get even more WMD than he already has...