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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: c.horn who wrote (1)	1/2/2003 10:02:35 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

I wish, my friend. But these are desperate times. They'll likely be many folk who'll be called up for actions of bravery. Right now, if you think about it, Hans Blix, an individual, very interestingly holds a better card than George W. Bush who has a military. Indeed, Ghandi couldn't have been better positioned than the position Hans Blix finds himself in. You see, historians won't be able to ignore the actions of Mr. Blix vs. those of Mr. Bush. It's amazing to think that a single individual could turn around such a huge process, but I think the pressure of the writing of future historians, not to mention the needless present day and alarming thought of the possible slaughter of many, many innocent people, could be enough to change the stakes of this war. Call it Pens of Presidential Destruction maybe--lol!?!

To: c.horn who wrote (1)	2/15/2003 11:07:15 AM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 25898

01/05/03 to 01/31/03 CHRONOLOGY: January 5, 2003: ccmep.org January 6, 2003: cnn.com cdi.org truthout.org washingtonpost.com January 7, 2003: arabicnews.com ellsberg.net workingforchange.com guardian.co.uk January 8, 2003: msnbc.com January 9, 2003: newsday.com newsday.com edinburghnews.com Message 18433975 January 10, 2003: msnbc.com Message 18432254 January 12, 2003: siliconinvestor.com observer.co.uk January 13, 2003: cnn.com washingtonpost.com January 14, 2003: thenation.com smh.com.au msnbc.com washingtonpost.com upi.com usatoday.com news.independent.co.uk January 15, 2003: timesonline.co.uk washingtonpost.com washingtonpost.com January 16, 2003: cnn.com cbc.ca January 17, 2003: miftah.org sunspot.net tompaine.com Message 18474903 January 18, 2003: abcnews.go.com newsday.com argument.independent.co.uk globeandmail.com atimes.com January 19, 2003: news.yahoo.com newsday.com ap.tbo.com newsday.com January 20, 2003: washingtonpost.com iht.com ap.tbo.com newsday.com villagevoice.com argument.independent.co.uk January 21, 2003: csmonitor.com washingtonpost.com newsday.com commondreams.org washingtonpost.com nytimes.com January 22, 2003: washingtonpost.com nytimes.com news.bbc.co.uk polyconomics.com capitolhillblue.com January 23, 2003: alternet.org english.pravda.ru abcnews.go.com Message 18484151 tehrantimes.com msnbc.com abcnews.go.com newsday.com newsday.com newsday.com newsday.com guardian.co.uk atimes.com Message 18489876 January 24, 2003: cbsnews.com washingtonpost.com newsday.com theage.com.au usatoday.com sfgate.com newsday.com argument.independent.co.uk globalpolicy.org January 25, 2003: latimes.com nytimes.com swissinfo.org newsday.com hindustantimes.com January 26, 2003: time.com newsday.com cnn.com theage.com.au smh.com.au nytimes.com Message 18492620 January 27, 2003 (UN Inspectors Report): jordantimes.com guardian.co.uk canada.com{3B9F2801-CA47-415E-8E45-F4FD17FC108E} msnbc.com cnn.com newsday.com newyorker.com freep.com dawn.com english.pravda.ru newsday.com newsday.com nytimes.com newsday.com newsday.com cnn.com msnbc.com cnn.com newsday.com January 28, 2003: Message 18527031 mediainfo.com theage.com.au nytimes.com newsday.com January 29, 2003: guardian.co.uk newsday.com newsday.com story.news.yahoo.com newsday.com newsday.com newsday.com jordantimes.com newsday.com newsday.com atimes.com January 30, 2003: newsday.com newsday.com newsday.com biz.yahoo.com moscowtimes.ru guardian.co.uk smh.com.au arabnews.com atimes.com moscowtimes.ru tehrantimes.com January 30 to February 5, 2003: weekly.ahram.org.eg weekly.ahram.org.eg January 31 to February 6, 2003: laweekly.com amazon.com. news.scotsman.com

To: c.horn who wrote (1)	2/17/2003 10:30:08 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

INTRODUCTORY QUESTION: As of this writing, January 2, 2003, I'm not aware of any direct proof Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. But the Bush Administration seems poised to conduct war on Iraq, with or without proof. If no weapons of mass destruction are found by the United Nations inspection team, led by Hans Blix and Mohamed Elbaredi, what will or should America do? Will Bush decide on war anyway? If the Bush Administration plays the war card, is there any way to stop America's generals from marching innocent young Americans into the sands of time of a windy war? How would history view this war? Could the war in Iraq be prevented if the chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed Elbaredi, because the inspection team cannot find any weapons of mass destruction, decide themselves to become human shields and, thus, remain in Iraq, defiance of Bush and a concern for innocent civilians who'd die? What if the pope went to Baghdad and stayed, in a call for no bombs? Indeed, such action would force Bush to think hard how future historians would pen his history. Introspectively, he'd have to deeply consider his own war. An important thought. Consider what it'll become like for a US-led invasion in a capture of Baghdad. If Saddam's military forces retreat into the inner city to defend it, extremely intensive urban combat could hapen that would make the Battle of Morgadishu (see film Blackhawk Down) seem like paintball in comparison. And ask yourself: When is the last time an invading army attempted to capture a city of 5.5 million inhabitants protected by an army of 300,000? And a very painful thought is the notion that many of those who will die will, themselves, be the victims of Saddam Hussein.