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: Thomas M. who wrote (1783)	9/29/2002 9:20:30 PM
From: Stephen O	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8683

Tom You said Saddam did not expel inspectors. That may very well be correct but HE DID NOT let them inspect where they wanted. As they could not use force of arms to inspect, they had to leave. That's the equivalent of expelling inspectors in my mind.

To: Thomas M. who wrote (1783)	9/29/2002 10:14:29 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

Actually that leftist guide to debating covered many of the tactics you and other leftists have used. I considered it a humorous look at your playbook. ..seizure of oil fields? Since when are we going to seize oil fields? We've never done that before and won't with Iraq. The issue I raised is valid. If you truly believe the US created Saddam and gave him his WMD's as you've stated, why wouldn't you also consider it the US's responsibility to remove him? ..since you embarrass yourself continuously when debating me. Your perception is quite different than mine and I have never felt embarrassment at anything I've posted when dealing with you or other leftists. I don't consider this debating though. Your side typically makes wild charges, refuses to answer questions asked, and simply drops an issue to go make other wild charges on other topics. I consider what I'm doing to be merely confronting propaganda. You're not capable of mounting a debate IMO. American ships were carrying British military equipment. And the British military was blockading Germany. Your article didn't mention that little piece of info about the Lusitania, for some odd reason. This was an ugly regional dispute, with no clear aggressor. The American ships I referred to were sunk by German subs. Germany had no idea what was on them - and neither do you. I wasn't referring to the Lusitania, which was a British passenger liner in commercial service. Contrary to your lie above, the article I posted clearly said both Germany and Britain were attempting to blockade the other country and America was trying to carry on trade to both. The British blockade resulted in no loss of American life, however, as the British blockade involved boarding vessels and seizing cargo which was then paid for by the British. The German blockade effort involved sinking ships by Uboats, with no idea of what was on board. essays.cc >>>> The British tried to stop all trade between Germany and the rest of the world. They extended their blockade by controlling imports to other neutral countries like Holland, Denmark and Sweden which are geographically close to Germany The Americans protested against the violation of neutral rights though Wilson never put undue pressure on England as no U.S. citizen lost his life due to the blockade. Moreover, all cargo seized was paid for at war. It was the German use of submarines in the war that brought the U.S. in direct confrontation with Germany. The German submarines fired indiscriminately at neutral ships too. ... Germany declared that the U-boats would sink all ships: passenger or merchant; belligerent or neutral in the war zone. ... On March 18, 1917, Germany sank three more American ships without prior warning. Saddam didn't expel the weapons inspectors. Saddam interfered with the inspectors ability to conduct their inspections. They then left. And Saddam refused to allow their return. This amounts to constructive expulsion. I note that you used a semantic issue to avoid answering a clear question about what your solution would be - again (that's point 11 in the leftist guide BTW). news.bbc.co.uk >>> The inspectors have been barred from Iraq since leaving the country in 1998, accusing the authorities of hampering their investigations into whether Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. <<<<