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.

Pastimes : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lost1 who wrote (2687)	10/13/2002 11:57:11 AM
From: Lost1	Respond to of 7689

Our voices must work to avert an invasion By Rep. Lloyd Doggett U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Sunday, October 13, 2002 I recently voted against what is really an authorization for launching a massive land invasion and military occupation of Iraq. More important than speaking with one voice, the votes of 133 Congress members against this rush to war underscored the importance of our continuing to speak as one democracy. I sought to give voice to the thousands of Central Texans who communicated their concerns about making the terrible weapon of war a predominant instrument in our foreign policy. With this grave decision on war and peace though, I knew I would have to answer to more than those I am privileged to represent -- I would have to answer to myself, my children and to history. War now would only increase the danger to American families. The house-to-house urban combat that would likely result from a land invasion in Iraq would kill thousands, divert precious resources from our ongoing war on terrorism and expose our families to more terrorism from among the many who would perceive this as a crusade against on Islam. From the information provided to Congress, I do have some insight into issues about which so many are understandably uncertain and fearful. No evidence has been shared to connect Iraq to the Sept. 11 tragedy, nor to show that Iraq now poses an imminent threat to American families. As former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft said, "Saddam Hussein is probably on Osama bin Laden's hit list." From Central Intelligence Agency reports, secret until last week, we know that the unfinished job of overcoming al Qaeda represents the real threat. The CIA concluded that invading Iraq is more likely to drive our now separate enemies together against us and certainly more likely to make Saddam Hussein use any weapons of mass destruction that he may possess. In addition to the cost in lives, the costs of war, to differing degrees, will touch us all. President Bush's top economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, estimated that the cost of waging this war may rise as high as $200 billion. At a time of chronic deficit spending, these are precious resources no longer available for education, health care, retirement security and homeland security. True security is more than a military second to none and effective law enforcement at home; it means working with nations to address our common security concerns. We are strong enough to defeat Iraq in combat, but we must be wise enough to rely on America's other strengths to rid the world of Saddam Hussein's danger. No fool would trust Saddam Hussein with even one American life. Our choice is not between "war" and "doing nothing" or between "war" and "appeasement." The prudent choice remains -- first, attempt holding Iraq accountable through effective, comprehensive, international inspections. Some of the most insightful arguments against invading Iraq were advanced by Republicans and military leaders. The first President Bush, in 1998, wrote: "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq . . . would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. . . . (We) could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf was even more direct: "I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit." Apparently, Iraq represents only the first step in implementing the administration's recently announced "first-strike" defense strategy. Over-reliance on packing the biggest gun and having the fastest draw will not make us safer. Rather, it is a formula for international anarchy. A quick draw may eliminate the occasional villain, but only at the cost of destabilizing the world, disrupting the hope for international law and order, and, ultimately, endangering all of us. President Reagan used containment effectively against another "evil empire," the Soviet Union, and from Cuba to Libya, a succession of presidents has avoided nuclear Armageddon. Containment and disarmament may not end all wars, but they are clearly superior to the new "first-strike formula" that risks wars without end. With the prospect of war overshadowing all of our hopes and dreams for this country and the world, we must continue to thoughtfully and respectfully voice our opposition in hopes that invasion may yet be averted. Doggett is a Democrat from Austin.