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: Raymond Duray who wrote (1658)	9/26/2002 11:45:29 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

Forget war. Start writing checks. In the long run, we would save big. We Might Get More Bang With Our Bucks By ERWIN CHEMERINSKY COMMENTARY Los Angeles Times September 26, 2002 War in Iraq is projected to cost $100 billion to $200 billion. Surely there are other ways to achieve President Bush's desired result--removing Saddam Hussein from power, or at least denying him weapons of mass destruction--with far less money and without the inevitable human tragedy of a war. Is there any price at which Saddam Hussein could be bribed to leave, for example? For $1 billion, or even $5 billion or $10 billion, Hussein might well be persuaded to step down rather than engage in a war that he's sure to lose. Could a huge bounty on Hussein's head, say $1 billion or even $10 billion, end his rule without an American invasion that could trigger his use of whatever weapons he possesses? Some in the palace guard might turn on him if the price were right. Could the scientific talent in Iraq, those who have the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, be bribed to leave? In all likelihood, there are at most a few dozen people in the country who have the technical knowledge to build weapons of mass destruction. Through intelligence information and weapons inspections, they could be located and offered huge sums to defect. For a small fraction of the cost of a war, Iraq could be flooded with weapons inspectors who could look in every nook and cranny of the country and find any weapons of mass destruction. Imagine sending 10,000 weapons inspectors, an absurdly large number and enough to turn over every imaginable stone in Iraq. If each was paid $100,000 a year, the cost would be $1 billion. Even paying all of their expenses and keeping them there for 10 years would cost less than 10% of the cost of a war and without the risk of killing thousands. Moreover, an invasion of Iraq would result in significant casualties and increase the risk of Hussein unleashing weapons of mass destruction, the very thing the war is trying to prevent. Such options may seem silly at first, but on reflection they illustrate how many alternatives less expensive than war are not being considered, such as feeding starving people around the world. A war on Iraq doesn't make rational sense. But why aren't the Democrats asking these questions? Why aren't they pushing for consideration of a much larger range of options? In 1962, faced with nuclear missiles just 90 miles from the U.S. shore, President Kennedy refrained from the use of force, pursued other strategies, and tragedy was averted. Kennedy acted rationally; it's time for the Democrats and the country to insist that Bush do the same. _____________________________________________________ Erwin Chemerinsky is a visiting professor at Duke Law School. latimes.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1658)	9/26/2002 10:02:15 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

ray. A little bed time story for you. Enjoy. We grow weary of les pipsqueaks. (Scan).(United States' relations with France)(Brief Article) Author/s: Ann Coulter Issue: March, 2002 As the nation mulls its next target in the war on terrorism, it's time to consider another Petri dish of ferocious anti-American hatred and terrorist activity: We've got to attack France. Having exhausted itself in a spirited fight with the Nazis in the last war, France cannot now work up the energy to oppose terrorism. France has nurtured, coddled, and funded Islamic terrorists for decades. Five years after Muslim terrorists assassinated 11 Israeli athletes and one German policeman at the 1972 Olympics, French counterespionage agents acting on intelligence from Israeli police arrested the reputed mastermind of the massacre, Abu Daoud. Both Israel and West Germany sought the extradition of Daoud. But afraid of upsetting Muslim terrorists, France refused on technical grounds and set him free. In 1986, Libyan agents of Muammar Qaddafi planted a bomb in a West Berlin discotheque, killing an American serviceman and a Turkish woman. Hundreds more were injured. President Reagan retaliated with air strikes against Libyan military targets--including Qaddafi's living quarters. Quaking in the face of this show of manly force, France denied America the use of its airspace. As a consequence, American pilots were required to begin their missions from airbases in Britain and to fly far around the borders of France. When the pilots finally made it to Tripoli, tired from the long flights, they bombed the French embassy by mistake. So sorry! France has repeatedly decried economic sanctions against Iraq and has accused the United Nations (the U.N.! not the Great Satan U.S.) of manufacturing evidence against Saddam Hussein. The French U.N. ambassador dismissed aerial photographs of Iraqi military trucks fleeing inspection sites just before U.N. weapons inspectors arrived as "perhaps a truckers' picnic." Earlier this year France connived with human-rights champions China and Cuba to toss the United States off the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Sudan took America's place, and if its diplomats are not too bogged down with torture and slave trading, they are very much looking forward to attending the meetings. This summer, Parisians actually made Mumia Abu-Jamal an honorary citizen of Paris. The convicted Philadelphia cop-killer has been sitting on death row (and giving radio interviews and college commencement addresses) for 20 years. Evidence of America's cowboy, bloodlust, rush-to-judgment approach to the death penalty, obviously. Two weeks into America's war on terrorism last fall, Le Figaro began calling for "American restraint." Only 17 percent of the French said they believed the U.S. military action was working (which was--admittedly--17 percent more than on the New York Times editorial page). In keeping with France's well-established reputation as a fearsome fighting machine, the French foreign minister immediately advised the United States to stop bombing Afghanistan. The first indictment to come out of the September 11 attacks was of a French national--Zacarias Moussaoui. He is believed to be the intended 20th hijacker on Bloody Tuesday. France quickly moved to provide consular protection to Moussaoui. French Justice Minister Marylise Lebranchu has demanded that Moussaoui not be executed. findarticles.com