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: Ed Huang who wrote (3230)	1/22/2003 7:26:37 PM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Bush hypocrisy is truly nauseating. He threatens to prosecute Iraqis using "banned" weapons to defend themselves against aggression. Meanwhile there are numerous reports that the US will use depleted uranium weapons again. These poison the soil for centuries.

To: Ed Huang who wrote (3230)	1/22/2003 7:31:30 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Let's do some supposing. Suppose we (the UK and US) do ignore all the pressure and last-minute finagling and do actually attack Iraq, which I think now is virtually certain. Suppose we win, which is absolutely certain. And suppose, once we've done so, and have occupied Iraq and have full (really full, not UN full) access to Iraq's records and can truly find what they have, that we find that everything we've been saying about their WMDs is really true; that they have chem and bio weapons and banned delivery systems, and are near to developing nukes, which I also think is extremely likely. One more and the most important: suppose that the records also show that during the 1990's companies in France or Germany (or both) actively and deliberately broke the sanctions and sold equipment and supplies to Iraq which helped it to create these things, and that the governments of Germany and France knew and approved of this and actively helped. That's the biggest and most speculative suppose. denbeste.nu

To: Ed Huang who wrote (3230)	1/22/2003 8:23:17 PM
From: Paul V.	Respond to of 25898

Ed,what has France ever done for the US. Those who advocate non violence when there is a moving party i sure would not want to be in a fox holw wth. Once proof was established in the Gulf War it is up to Iraq to prove they are completely without weapons (chemical, etc.) The burden, in legal terms changes to Sadam to prove that he has clean hands not us. Yes, the US is concerned with our economic. From my experience, Economic determinism rules. Yes, that includes the impact of oil. Oil, and US protection are both influencing the IRAQ situation. My past experience as a professional organizer indicate that you do not make a threat that you do not have the power or willingness to follow through with. The US has made the threat therefore without Sadam proving his clean hands the US must put up or shut up. Shutting up will cause the US to become the laughing stock of the world and lose face as a power. Economically, the elimation of Sadam, will confirm the fact that the US is not to be adverselly dealt with. When we speak be will to back it up with the big stick. Just my opinion. Paul