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: LindyBill who wrote (47273)	9/26/2002 4:32:44 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>>Kurds of al-Qaida organization surrendered Iraq, Politics, 9/26/2002 The official in the Kurdistani national federation, Adel Murad, said yesterday that 11 members in an extremist Kurdish group suspected to have links to al-Qaida organization surrendered themselves to the Kurdish forces in northern Iraq. Murad, who takes Damascus as a headquarters, said in a press statement that Jawad Jamal Najib and baker Hussein Mahmoud, who are members of Ansar al-Islam ( Islam partisans), surrendered on September 21 while other nine surrendered themselves on yesterday. Murad added that Najib cooperated with al-Qaida through smuggling Hashish from Afghanistan in 1998.<< arabicnews.com Can't remember who it was that was wondering why the New Yorker knew about these guys but the CIA didn't.

To: LindyBill who wrote (47273)	9/26/2002 4:48:24 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

On a financial note..A/K/A I love Capitalism.... As an old banker I find this sooooo Attractive: We Might Get More Bang With Our Bucks Forget war. Start writing checks. In the long run, we would save big. 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 chemer2... <<Lindy do you have me on ignore???>>>

To: LindyBill who wrote (47273)	9/26/2002 7:51:01 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

And what a barrel of laughs the reformation was. Just one little scene in that particular play, the Thirty Years War in Germany, took out 1/3 the population. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition either. Christianity did somewhat get its act put in order by the separation of church and state, but that was a later invention. The local Christian Nation crowd is still in denial on that one, too. I'd like to say live and learn, but I'm not sure we've quite learned just yet. My understanding is that Anne Coulter seems to have different ideas on how, exactly, Christianity should be applied, not quite compatible with conventional establishment clause interpretation. For a little diversity from the usual definitive Bernard Lewis projection from the Ottoman Empire on Islam, there's this: theatlantic.com . A lot of nice sidebar links on that one, including Lewis but also some alternative views.