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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (50116)	10/8/2002 1:26:21 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

Once again, no link, no date, and obviously he didn't listen to the speech tonight, so he doesn't know a fig about RPV's or satellite pictures....or much of anything else.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (50116)	10/8/2002 4:47:16 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

People should demand a full and open debate By Jim Mullins Editorial South Florida Sun-Sentinel Posted October 7, 2002 During the past few weeks, the American public has been inundated with demands from President Bush to support his rush to war against Iraq, yet the majority of editorials and letters to the editor in major newspapers question the urgency. Many wonder "why now?" -- just before a crucial election when the smoke of war obscures the many problems ordinary Americans face: their savings lost in corporate corruption, a stock market free fall, a ballooning trade deficit, rising unemployment, information on the intelligence failure leading to 9/11, the attempt to establish White House control of the Homeland Security Agency free of civil service restraint and, particularly worrisome, a Pentagon policy of world domination. Serious doubts remain as to the facts requiring us to wage pre-emptive war on Iraq, where we stand on the war on terrorism and the progress of peaceful reconstruction in Afghanistan. On Sept. 10, the administration conceded that it had no hard evidence of Iraqi involvement with al-Qaida. But then Bush stated at the end of the month that Iraq has "long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations and there are al-Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." Actually, when several al-Qaida suspects were deported from Iran into the Kurdish area of Iraq, the Kurds asked the U.S. to come and get them (Saddam Hussein has no control over that area), but the U.S. failed to do so. The reason is obvious: To do so would give both Iran and particularly Iraq credit for assisting in the war on terrorism. Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Council director, has consistently stated that no one in the U.S. government could have suspected that someone would fly a plane into the World Trade Center. On Sept. 24, an FBI supervisor in Minneapolis testified in Congress that he pleaded for permission to search Zacarias Moussaoui's belongings to make sure that the suspect "did not take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center." As evidence that Iraq was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon, President Bush has cited a 1998 report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which inspects Iraq yearly for evidence of nuclear weapon development. The IAEA categorically denies making any such report then or any other time. Jose Bustani, director-general of the U.N. Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, proposed in 2000 to strengthen enforcement of its inspections and, in doing so, force Iraq to submit to chemical weapon inspection. Despite the fact that Bustani had overseen the destruction of more than 2 million chemical weapons and two-thirds of the world's chemical weapon facilities, had increased the number of signatories from 87 to 145, had been re-elected to a five-year term in 2000, and Colin Powell had described his work as "very impressive," the United States asked for his recall. Bustani's plan had been to persuade Iraq to submit to OPCW inspection, both routine and unannounced, as do all member states except the U.S. OPCW was an uncompromised and neutral body; had it been refused, the U.N. would have the moral authority and worldwide support to force compliance. When Brazil, Bustani's sponsor, refused to recall him, the United States withheld funding and, when that didn't work, threatened to withdraw from the convention. U.S. bullying won and Jose Bustani was fired -- but at what cost to both our reputation and the future of international prohibition of chemical weapons? Little is known by the American people of the close relationship between the U.S. and Iraq before the Gulf War. We hear so much about Hussein gassing his own people, but nothing about the fact that the U.S. was supplying Iraq with biological material, including anthrax, gas gangrene and botulism, and the satellite intelligence and helicopters that turned the tide of the Iran-Iraq war in favor of Iraq. We continued to do so after Iraq gassed Iranian troops and subsequently Kurdish civilians, whose leaders had joined with the Iranians by rebelling against the Iraqi government. Liaison between Saddam Hussein and the U.S. was by none other than now Secretary of Defense Donald S. Rumsfeld. His then and now close colleagues were Paul Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney, who were fully aware of Iraq's actions and said and did nothing. Cooperation continued until the Gulf War. The United States is being led into war with many unexamined and unpredictable consequences. Bush is on an adventure that will be far more costly in blood and treasure, with nation building as a prospect not only in Afghanistan where it has scarcely begun, but in Iraq, riven by even more ethnic and religious rivalries. The American people should demand a full and open debate on all these issues before we rush headlong into untold years of strife with enormous economic cost that will impede solutions to the domestic problems facing us. ____________________________________________________ Jim Mullins is a visiting fellow with the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C., and a resident of Delray Beach. Copyright © 2002, South Florida Sun-Sentinel sun-sentinel.com

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (50116)	10/8/2002 2:47:16 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Q. I don't get it. Just about everyone in the world -- including even his father's famous brain trust -- thinks that Bush attacking Iraq, with no provocation, is a terrible idea and will harm America's national interests. At least Mr. Whiner(sic) recognizes that he "doesn't get it".. Maybe he should cast his "vote" online and see just where he stands as compared to other Americans (and presumably some non-Americans) with regard to Bush's speech last night. vote.com In short, to remake the world in America's image, to structure a new world order that, in all things that matter, does America's bidding. Hmmm... The United States was INSTRUMENTAL in creating BOTH the League of Nations and United Nations in order to create a "New World Order".. And apparently a good majority of nations thought it might be a good idea to join (Especially if the US was footing most of the bill) regardless of whether they believed in democracy or not. And look at the most recent events in Iraq, where the UN has NOT been doing the bidding of the US.. In fact, it's been doing it's own thing and relying upon the US to bear most of the financial, military, and human cost when it doesn't have the ability to fulfill its Security Council resolutions. Q. What if this theory is wrong? What if people don't especially want to be ruled by America and follow all its dictates? What if they want to choose another path? Then they join the UN... which generally follows its "own path" anyway.. Q. This new Bush doctrine basically seems to be saying that whenever you think another country is going to harm your interests, it's OK pre-emptively to invade them or assassinate their leaders Strike "your interests" and substitute "or threaten to destroy global and regional stability" and Whiner(sic) will have it right... Because when the world goes to "hell in a hand basket" as it did when Saddam invaded Kuwait, it's the US which is expected to pony up the resources and risk its young sons and daughters fixing what the UN should have fixed years before. The only problem with this scenario is that it's delusional. The real problem is that Whiner is delusional if he doesn't believe that an Iraqi Officer corps and military which has been either been bribed or coerced into loyalty (threats and torture against family) won't leap at the opportunity for a better deal.. Maybe one in which they can gain for themselves even more power and prestige by being on the "winning side" for once.. Saddam's enemies can be persuaded to overthrow him, but only if the US shows something it hasn't shown since Desert Storm.. The back bone to follow through on its threats to overthrow Saddam if he doesn't behave. In sum.. what Whiner(sic) is claiming is that the UN made a bunch of binding resolutions back in 1991 that he'd much rather completely forget.. Treat it like a parking ticket against a Mafia Godfather, in which it's better to "fuuget about it" lest the judge finds photographs of his children at play being mailed to him by unknown sources. Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., also authored " 'The War on Terrorism' for Dummies," "The Middle East for Dummies," "The Intifadeh & Israel for Dummies" and "The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies." I guess he feels he has an inordinate amount of experience thinking like a dummy.. Hawk@aintitironic.com