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 : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Machaon who wrote (18941)	1/21/2003 9:09:41 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

On trusting a murderous dictator January 21, 2003 This round of weapons inspections in Iraq, from the United States' perspective at least, was never about looking for a smoking gun but giving Saddam Hussein one last chance to come clean. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reiterated that point on "Fox News Sunday," saying that if we had sent inspectors into Iraq for the purpose of discovering and finding things, "they would have been named finders or discoverers instead of inspectors." The test, said Rumsfeld, is not whether weapons are found, but whether Saddam is cooperating. "That is what ought to be measured. That's what the U.N. asked for." Indeed, it would be a fool's errand to look for a smoking gun in a country so vast, says David Kay, former chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq. We had already found plenty of smoking guns by 1998 when Saddam ejected the inspectors. If we know he had chemical and biological weapons and an ambitious nuclear weapons program then, why should we assume he has since eliminated them? President Bush has repeatedly said that the burden of proof is on Saddam Hussein to demonstrate that he has rid himself of these weapons. It is not up to the world to prove he still has them. Isn't that a reasonable position for the president to take? We're not asking Saddam to prove a negative but to show us how he destroyed his weapons. That was supposed to be the purpose of Iraq's Dec. 8 declaration, which, predictably, was entirely fraudulent. Besides, what incentive does this tyrannical sociopath have to disarm? Power is his very reason for existence. He's about as likely to disarm voluntarily as he is to drain his own body dry of blood. Not only is power his lifeblood; it is the only thing he understands, the only language he speaks – which is why it took a deadly serious threat of invasion before he would readmit the inspectors. He has certainly never had to pay a heavy price for refusing to disarm and for failing otherwise to comply with the Gulf War treaties, including routinely shooting at our planes in the no-fly zones. Ask yourself: Is this woefully guilty man entitled to the presumption of innocence? What evidence is there in history of megalomaniacal dictators rehabilitating themselves? Is it even a remote possibility that Saddam has eliminated these weapons on his own? We're talking about a man who launched a brutal war against his neighbor Iran, who invaded the tiny country of Kuwait, who routinely kills his own generals and who gassed thousands of his own people, and some want to give him the benefit of the doubt? Would we have trusted Hitler to dismantle his war machine and curb his imperial appetite? Oh, sorry, I forgot that some did. But many of these people urging us to trust Saddam are the same ones who insist we cannot trust our own leaders. Radicals from British spy novelist John Le Carre and the Hollywood Left, to Ramsey Clark and this growing cabal of lunatic fringe protesters, maintain this is a war for oil. British journalist Robert Fisk says this war was "concocted" five years ago by oilmen such as Dick Cheney. Yes, this bizarre group of people is telling us we should place our trust in a proven murderer and impute criminal intent to George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, all of whom, by the way, the American people believe in overwhelming numbers to be trustworthy. It is so easy for the America-bashers to slander this nation. But I ask you to consider when this country – the world's only superpower, no less – has used its superior forces to steal other nations' resources. Are we talking about the nation that spent $13 billion ($73 billion in 1990 dollars) through the Marshall Plan following World War II to help rebuild war-torn Europe, including our vanquished enemies? Are we talking about the nation that militarily skunked Saddam Hussein and let him and his oil off the hook in 1991? Are we talking about the nation that sent care packages to Afghanistan while stripping its rogue Taliban regime from power? Are we talking about the nation that always pays its own way and generously assists other peoples throughout the world? While the useful idiots will continue to be idiotic, President Bush will soon lead a coalition of the willing into Iraq to disarm Saddam and dismantle his regime. He has left us no other choice. worldnetdaily.com

To: Machaon who wrote (18941)	1/22/2003 8:43:01 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

The Return of the Ayatollah January 21, 2003 Washington could afford a little more attention on Iran. By one of those happy coincidences in which no Iranian ever really believes, both The Economist and the New York Times have discovered that Iran's religious leaders are not happy with the way things are going in the Islamic Republic. As readers of my columns have known for some time, many of the country's leading ayatollahs have figured out that when the Islamic regime is finally brought down, the people's rage is likely to be directed against the clerics as well as the political tyrants. Shiite Islam will be a major casualty in the coming democratic revolution, and the more-thoughtful mullahs and ayatollahs are already joining the ranks of the revolutionaries. Both The Economist and the Times senior clerics in the holy city of Qom are quoted as supporting a clean separation between mosque and state, in which the ayatollahs will return to their traditional religious function, leaving the management of the affairs of state in the hands of the representatives of the people. Neither publication pointed out that the regime has extended its repression to Qom in recent months, rounding up outspoken teachers and theologians and sending them to Tehran, where they vanished into the black hole of the institutions of Islamic Justice. Despite this attempt to silence religious critics with the regime's iron fist, several of the surviving remnant spoke openly to the Western journalists about the illegitimacy of the regime and the misery it has brought to the Iranian people. On Monday, reporter Nazila Fathi carried the story one step further, reporting on an incendiary letter issued by the Ayatollah Taheri, the former Friday prayer leader in Isfahan who broke with the regime late last year by resigning his position and attacking the country's leaders in the most-explicit possible terms. Taheri's latest tirade called on Iranian clerics to condemn the five-year old house arrest of the venerated Ayatollah Montazeri, one of the authors of the country's post-revolutionary constitution, and the designated successor to the Ayatollah Khomeini until shortly before Khomeini's death, when Montazeri condemned Khomeini's unconstitutional seizure of absolute power. Last week, Fathi reported in the Times that 100 legislators issued a letter demanding Montazeri's release, spurred by reports of the aging cleric's failing health, and by the regime's denial of medical treatment. Taheri, as usual, was unsparing in his language, condemning the clerics for cowardice, and refusing to carry out their "divine and human role." "How come we could come to peace with Saddam Hussein, but it is impossible to agree with a Muslim ayatollah?" he intoned. Both the Taheri letter and the interviews with the two Western publications suggest yet another turning point in the saga of the failing Islamic Republic. In recent months, student demonstrators have been joined by other segments of the population, from workers in the oil and textile industries (the two main sources of hard currency), to teachers and mounting numbers of ordinary citizens. The addition of significant numbers of religious leaders would give even greater force to the calls for a national referendum with free elections to follow. As their end draws ever nearer, the regime's leaders are increasing the terror that alone keeps them in power. They obviously hope to accelerate Montazeri's death by withholding medical treatment, and summary trials and executions are now a staple of the daily news. They have calculated that if they kill enough actual and potential dissidents, the rest of the population will bend to the will of the regime. But they are walking a perilous tightrope, because dissidents are cropping up on all sides, and if the regime proves unable to silence tem, then the opposite dynamic will take effect, and the people will be more likely to bring down their oppressors. Meanwhile, back in Washington there is not the slightest sign that our policymakers feel any obligation to come to grips with the Iranian crisis. Somewhere in the constipated bowels of the national-security bureaucracy a presidential strategy declaration festers. Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and National Security Adviser Rice have been too busy fine-tuning their language on the prospects of safe passage for Saddam, and on the degree of largesse we are prepared to offer North Korea in return for future worthless promises, to spare a moment for the long-suffering Iranian people. Did any of them notice the quiet movement of more than 200 top al Qaeda personnel from Iran to their enclave in northern Iraq in recent days? Did any of them notice that a top North Korean general took a long, devious route from Pyongyang to Tehran to discuss strategy with the mullahs? Probably not. If they had, they would have been forced to do something before the long-standing promise of the Iranian regime to respond to President Bush's tough language in their own way — in the heartland of America — is fulfilled. Maybe then they'll notice. Faster, please. We don't need more dead Americans. nationalreview.com