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 (50324)	10/8/2002 7:52:30 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 281500

IMPORTANT: CIA Director George Tenet told lawmakers Tuesday that Saddam Hussein might not use his weapons of mass destruction - unless provoked by an imminent U.S.-led attack. HELLO Provocation WILL result in retaliation!! CAn people NOT understand that. CIA director does, Military does, most folks in US do. miami.com

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (50324)	10/8/2002 7:52:49 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush's Zero-Risk Policy Commentary - The Monitor's View from the October 09, 2002 edition The Christian Science Monitor The key point in President Bush's Monday night speech was that the United States should not accept any level of risk in letting Iraq create or deliver weapons of mass destruction. "I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein," the president told a "heartland" audience in Cincinnati. Ensuring that the US is totally free of any terrorist risks sets a high goal, requiring all sorts of sacrifices that many Americans aren't yet ready to accept. Wary of war, some critics first insist on an imminent threat from Iraq or from an Iraqi weapon handed over to a terrorist. They cite the United Nations Charter, which allows a war of self-defense only in the case of armed attack. Others say the risk is not yet high enough to end the diplomatic path of asking Mr. Hussein to allow full and unfettered inspections. Still others accept a high risk from Iraq but feel uneasy in justifying a war unless there's more global consensus beyond a few allies such as Britain and one or two Arab nations. Bush's retort to his critics is to remind them how the US, in its long-time passive security strategy, failed to anticipate the Al Qaeda attacks on Sept. 11 – despite previous attacks and plenty of tips to intelligence agencies. The lesson of Sept. 11, Bush says, is that "we are resolved today to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America." Bush implies that a debate over the evidence about Hussein's capability and intent only blinds Americans to the need to accept a difficult strategy of zero-risk security in an age where terrorists can use destructive weapons. Like an insurance salesman, Bush must both define a new kind of risk in Iraq and quantify it, but then lay out ways to avoid it altogether or simply deal with it piecemeal. He's up against Americans' historic feeling that the oceans protect them. Many of them believe their particular neighborhood isn't a terrorist target zone, so why support a war against Iraq? But Bush wants all Americans to be concerned about losing any one American to an Iraqi-inspired attack. He's calling for both selflessness in saving any one American's life, and sacrifice (including war) to reduce the terrorist risk to zero. How Americans respond will determine whether they will support a war on Iraq. csmonitor.com

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (50324)	10/9/2002 12:04:57 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Musing about this article: These two snipets were at the bottom~~~ At the Pentagon, Defense Intelligence Agency official John Yurechko told reporters that Saddam is actively making biological and chemical weapons and trying to hide that fact from the world. He is "taking steps to conceal sensitive equipment and documentation in anticipation of new inspections," Yurechko said. Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador to the United States, told a foreign-policy audience in Washington, "As far as Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction are concerned, for the international community inaction is not an option 88888888888888888888888 Reasons to consider: The Bush administration has made the case that going after Saddam is necessary because he has the capability to use weapons of mass destruction and is trying to expand it. The administration also stresses that he has used them in the past. Colin Powell said: "All of my colleagues at the United Nations and others I've spoken to around the world clearly see the threat," 8888888888888888888888888888888 Reasons to look at who said what, and the key words.... Tenant said: Iraq might not use unless provoked Despite Bush's assertion that the Iraqi leader might be planning a chemical or biological attack on U.S. interests, Tenet suggested Baghdad "for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons." Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack against his country could not be deterred, "he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action," Tenet said in a letter read before a joint hearing of the House and Senate intelligence committees. , suggesting that Saddam's possession of such weapons doesn't necessarily mean he'll use them soon Message 18089403