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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: portage who wrote (12196)	1/25/2003 11:14:58 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Agree, the most dangerous since Nixon, both on the domestic and foreign scene. I'm not optimistic about the election. I am even paranoid enuf to think there may not be an election. However, it really "is the economy, stupid", and I don't see it getting a whole lot better for a while, especially when it seems like the Bushies view the market as the primary indicator of health, and think everything will be OK if we can only get the market up. (If we invade, and the world reacts by shunning us, things, will get even worse, but that's a story better told by JW). As for Nader, who I once thought a lot of, I wonder if he still thinks there are no differences between the Rs and the Ds. Rat

To: portage who wrote (12196)	1/26/2003 2:32:59 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

The lead editorial from Sunday's New York Times... The Race to War Lead Editorial The New York Times January 26, 2003 The countdown to war has begun. The United Nations will hear the report of its weapons inspectors this week and begin debating the wisdom of endorsing a war against Iraq. But the Bush administration seems to be operating on a different plane, gearing up for an invasion it appears determined to conduct whether or not its allies approve. At best, it may give the Security Council a few more weeks to consider whether to approve an attack on Iraq. We urge the administration to brake the momentum toward war. Saddam Hussein is obviously a brutal dictator who deserves toppling. No one who knows his history can doubt that he is secretly trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. But this war should be waged only with broad international support. To go it alone, or nearly alone, is to court disaster both domestically and internationally. Mr. Bush has enough support among American voters to undertake the kind of clean, quickly successful military action his father directed in the Persian Gulf war of 1991. But every poll, every anecdotal reading of the American mood makes it clear that he has not sold the public on anything difficult or drawn out. Iraq is a large and complex Arab nation of 24 million people in the heart of the Middle East. America's overwhelming advantage in firepower might not prevent a prolonged period of street-to-street fighting in Baghdad that would be murderous to Americans and Iraqis alike. A desperate Iraq might try to attack Israel, disable Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields or even destroy its own oil industry before it fell into American hands. It might fire whatever chemical and biological weapons it has against American troops. These are risks that could be well worth taking, but the American public has not signed on for them. This nation should never begin a fight it is not prepared to carry out to the bitter end, no matter what the cost. That isn't true of this engagement, and the fault lies mainly with the president himself. Mr. Bush has never been open with the American people about the possible cost of this war. He has not even been clear about exactly why we are preparing to fight. Sometimes his aim appears to be disarming the Iraqis or punishing Baghdad for defying the United Nations; sometimes the goal is nothing short of deposing Mr. Hussein. The first lesson of the Vietnam era was that Americans should not be sent to die for aims the country only vaguely understands and accepts. The second lesson of Vietnam was that the country should never enter into a conflict without a clear exit strategy. We have nothing close to a plan for how, once in Iraq, we get back out again. Even if Mr. Hussein is easily eliminated, the United States will be left to govern and police Iraq for an extended period. Without clearly acknowledging the possibility to the American public, Washington could easily find itself involved in an open-ended occupation. These risks would be tolerable if the rest of the world were working alongside the United States, prepared to share the danger of the invasion and — much more critically — the responsibility for creating a more humane and progressive Iraqi government in its wake. There are some threats and some causes that require fighting even if America has to fight alone, but this isn't one of them. And the world — like the American public — is not yet really convinced that a Hussein-free Middle East is a goal worth fighting a war for. Britain, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Australia and a number of Persian Gulf states have offered military assistance or access to bases, but there should be no mistaking this ad hoc group for a united international front. France, Germany, Russia, China and even Canada are not on board. They may all have their parochial reasons for not joining the fight, but their resistance to war should be a powerful signal that if anything goes wrong — and something will go wrong sooner or later — the United States will bear the responsibility alone. One of the most disturbing aspects of the Bush administration's campaign to get broader international support is the implication that France or any other nation that fails to get on board now will be cut out of the administration of postwar Iraq and its oil fields. Freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's brutality and freeing the world from the threat of his belligerence are causes worth fighting for. Winning control of Iraq's oil fields is not, particularly when the attacking nation is a country whose wasteful use of energy is an international scandal. We hope that after the chief weapons inspectors present their reports tomorrow, the members of the United Nations Security Council will set aside their preconceptions and evaluate the findings carefully, particularly the level of Iraqi cooperation. The inspectors alone will never disarm Iraq. But they can slow Mr. Hussein's weapons programs, leaving more time for diplomatic efforts to remove him from power and for Washington to mobilize the international support it now lacks. Forty years ago, the United States entered into a conflict in Southeast Asia with good intentions. When it emerged, it was torn at home and humbled abroad. The men and women now preparing to take the country into war in Iraq are, in the main, products of the Vietnam generation. They should be the first to remember how easy it is for things that begin well to end badly. nytimes.com

To: portage who wrote (12196)	1/26/2003 4:54:58 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Tell Us Why War Is Needed LEAD EDITORIAL The Los Angeles Times January 26, 2003 The United States led the charge to bring United Nations inspectors back into Iraq last month in search of hidden stores of nerve gas, anthrax and other chemical and biological weapons that can kill thousands of people in minutes and hundreds of thousands over time. In the meantime, some 60,000 U.S. troops have landed in Kuwait, Qatar and other nations in the region, and nearly 100,000 more are headed there in the next few weeks. President Bush, seeming to depart from diplomacy last week, wondered "How much time do we need?" to see that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is not disarming. The deputy secretary of State said he doubted that war could be averted. The buildup to war continues. Outside of official Washington, the rest of the country is asking: What exactly compels U.S. military action against Iraq now? Hussein is an odious dictator who used chemical weapons against his own citizens, killing at least 5,000 people on a single March day in 1988. He tortures his people. He invaded Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He supports Palestinian terrorists who kill Israelis. He has tried to build nuclear weapons. All that is known. It was true in September, when President Bush addressed the United Nations. It was true 10 years ago. Americans need to understand the urgency of the drumbeat coming out of the White House in the last several months. What has changed? * More Than Legalisms Bush insists that the burden of proof is on Iraq to comply with U.N. Security Council demands and show that it has given up its weapons of mass destruction. That may be legalistically true. But the American people are demanding more than legalisms. They are seeking, and they deserve, a definitive statement from Bush about why now is the time for war. So far, he has failed to meet that high burden of proof. Bush would find more support if Iraq had again invaded another country or been linked to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. On the contrary, it has allowed United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country after an absence of four years to seek biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Baghdad has defied the U.N.'s Nov. 8 demand that it provide an "accurate, full and complete" list of its weapons, programs to develop them and scientists working on them. But that defiance has not convinced most other nations of the need for military action. U.N. inspectors found empty chemical warheads 75 miles south of Baghdad this month and have seized possible weapons- related documents for further examination. That discovery has prompted critics to argue that the inspections are working and that extending them is far preferable to war. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has repeatedly said the inspections will produce evidence of Iraq's refusal to comply with U.N. Resolution 1441, approved by all 15 Security Council members, demanding disarmament. That implies the United States knows more than it is saying. And that leads Americans to ask what the president knows that the rest of us do not. Tens of thousands of demonstrators against military action packed the Mall in Washington last weekend in scenes reminiscent of anti-Vietnam War protests. Demonstrators also have taken to the streets in other cities across the country to oppose war plans. * Call to Continue Inspections Nations allied to the United States have suggested caution, saying that U.N. teams in Iraq need more time to search for weapons. France, for instance, has threatened to veto a follow-up Security Council resolution authorizing war unless inspections continue. France and Germany successfully pressured NATO to delay drawing up plans to support U.S.-led forces. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, leader of the closest U.S. ally in demanding Iraq's disarmament, said inspections must be given "time and space." When the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, reports to the Security Council on Monday he is expected to ask for more time for his teams to continue searching. Even as inspectors were searching for evidence to justify war, reservists have been called from their civilian jobs and put on planes bound for Kuwait; a hospital ship is steaming toward the Middle East; aircraft carriers are massing in the region. Those troops, ships and aircraft are a needed show of force, intended to compel an otherwise recalcitrant Iraq to heed U.N. commands. But it's important to remember that the presence of tens of thousands of troops -- expected eventually to number more than 150,000, the vast majority of them American -- is of itself not grounds for military action. * Shadows From the Past Bush has a steeper political hill to climb because of unhappiness abroad at his past disavowals of international treaties, from the Kyoto accord on global warming to the International Criminal Court. There also is concern that rather than an imminent threat, Iraq represents "unfinished business" from his father's presidency. Deepening that concern are Bush's frequent personal comments about Hussein, which often come across as more petulant than presidential. Polls show Americans to be unconvinced of the need for war with Iraq but supporting military action if the president decides it is needed. In a Times poll last month, 72% of respondents said the president had not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war, but 58% said they would back a ground attack if Bush ordered one. A CBS News-New York Times poll last week found that 63% of those queried wanted Bush to reach a diplomatic solution, but if military action is necessary, 64% said they would support it. Those worries argue for a presidential address devoted not to the overall state of the union -- as we will hear Tuesday -- but just to Iraq; not detailing Iraq's past criminality but spelling out the threat that justifies war now. Military action is not inevitable, despite the beliefs of most in official Washington. Going to war without the strong support of the American people would bring disaster. latimes.com

To: portage who wrote (12196)	1/27/2003 4:50:18 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

***I SURE CAN RELATE TO THIS PERSPECTIVE... Country deserves tough love from citizens By LYNN WILLEFORD GUEST COLUMNIST the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Monday, January 27, 2003 I was 23 before I was finally able to vote in a presidential election and my first vote went to George McGovern for his courageous stand against the war in Southeast Asia. Americans who didn't support the war were considered unpatriotic and their love for their country was questioned. I had my say at the ballot box and not in the streets, but such slogans as "America --Love it or leave it" and "My country right or wrong" were hurled at anyone who disagreed with foreign policy. Thirty years have passed and I'm getting more than a whiff of that same attitude in the ongoing discussion of America's role in the world. In the intervening years, though, I've become a parent and have a new take on this tension between those who agree with government policy and those who don't. Every parent knows it's a pretty poor sort of love if you cannot find the discipline or the courage to stop someone you love from wrong or dangerous behavior. As a mother, it was my job to teach my child to share his toys and be kind to others. It was my job to teach him not to hit other kids, not to cross the street without checking for cars and not to touch anything with a Mr. Yuk label on it. I instructed, nagged and occasionally punished my child because I loved him and I wanted him to grow up to be a good person who would play a useful role in the greater community. I would love him no matter how awful he was, but it was still my responsibility to guide and correct his behavior until he reached adulthood. When he broke the rules, I didn't get rid of him. I pointed out the error of his ways and worked with him on changing his behavior. Isn't this a sign of good parenting and a loving relationship? Why should it be any different with countries? Continuing the family analogy, let's look at what we do if dad's drinking is out of control, little brother is hooked on crank or grandma's health is in jeopardy from obesity. A loving family member speaks up, even when everyone else wants to stay in denial to "be nice." The stakes -- a person's life -- are too big here. So if America has become drunk on power, are you the bad relative if you call attention to the fact and ask for an intervention? This country was founded by people who didn't want to be told what to do, religious and political dissenters who may have loved their mother country but eventually spoke out about her deplorable behavior. Centuries later, America and "Mother England" still remain close. Think of it as Tough Love. It is my right and my duty as an American citizen to speak out when I think my country has embarked on immoral or dangerous behavior. I do it because I love my country. Neither kids nor countries benefit from unwarranted praise, denial of problems or unconditional acceptance of all behaviors. If I see my country refusing to share its toys, bullying smaller countries, telling lies or bragging about its riches in the face of others' poverty, I've got no choice but to give it a talking-to because it's too big to send to the Gobi Desert for a time-out. ______________________________________________ Lynn Willeford lives in Langley. Submissions for First Person, of up to 800 words, can be e-mailed to editpage@seattlepi.com; faxed to 206-448-8184 or mailed to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, P.O. Box 1909, Seattle, WA 98111-1909. seattlepi.nwsource.com