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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (2505)	1/21/2003 2:37:45 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Bush has repeatedly said that he has independent evidence concerning Saddam's nuclear efforts. It appears that his entire Iraq effort has been based on this evidence. I can't imagine someone as politically canny as Bush bluffing on a point that could make or break his Presidency. I can only assume that he has shared this evidence with Blair. The inspectors are, in this sense, almost irrelevant since whatever evidence Bush has is presumably sufficient to justify the cost of a huge mobilization. The evidence is also presumably sufficient to justify the "go it alone" stance.

To: Neocon who wrote (2505)	1/22/2003 4:21:16 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

I understand your position - you trust the system. In a world where various governments have been known to lie to the public for their own agendas, I am more sceptical. This is not to say that Bush is not a "good person", perhaps he is a great dad, a good friend, and an overall "good person". However, he has lied in the past (ex: his army service) and his business track record quite shady. So, in the presence of some other very obvious incentives (oil) that seem to coincide rather suspiciously with his background (oil) and those of his team (oil), not to mention the absence of similar reactions to other dictators (Pakistan) and wannabe nuclear powers (North Korea), I do not find it easy to trust Bush when he says "We will invade Iraq because he MIGHT have weapons, and oh, we HAVE proof but we are not showing it to anybody". Hmm. I do not buy the idea that Tony Blair is on board because he is a mere toady I don't know what "toady" means (poodle? puppet?) but I would say he is on board for the economic benefits - i.e. British oil companies having a field day along with their American peers after the invasion. or the UN is merely humoring the United States It looks like the UN is trying to harness Bush, calm him down a bit from this invasion frenzy. or that the Democrats were to wimpy to stand up to Bush Not so sure about that, but it seems they are finding it difficult to stand up to the "leader" when the country is under "threat", and risk looking like "traitors" - this is what another poster called the anti-war protestors over the past weekend, and I imagine the accusation could hang over the Democrats as well if they are not careful. The only real disagreement, now, is over whether inspections alone (backed by the threat of force) will suffice to deal with the issue. True. Depends on how we define "the issue", though, doesn't it?