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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (351122)	1/31/2003 2:46:57 PM
From: George Coyne	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Cosmo, It is very frustrating that so few either do not understand, do not want to admit, or do not stress that the danger from Saddam is NOT so much that he will again threaten his neighbors, but that he will serve as a state sponsored source of weapons to various scattered Al Queda and other terrorist groups. Why is that not obvious?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (351122)	1/31/2003 3:01:58 PM
From: Rainy_Day_Woman	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 769670

Iraq under Saddam gave it's consent to U.N. Resolution 687 in it Iraq agreed to destroy or remove all long-range ballistic missiles and all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons also in it were all the time frames - not one has been met, not ONE that was TWELVE years ago you bring up Hitler, noting that Saddam is not Hitler was Hitler a credible threat in 1933 when he came to power? what gave him power was the flagrant violations of Versailles, beginning with a serious rearmament program, building his army and naval fleet the world looked the other way while that happened, it's called appeasement history will prove to you appeasement doesn't work the European countries have a very short memory England and the United States do not you don't want WWIII? then he has to be stopped and stopped now the middle east is far to volatile to allow any country in that region to wield power with WMD, least of all a country that has a proven aggressive track record

To: cosmicforce who wrote (351122)	1/31/2003 4:16:45 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Good job on your classifications. I agree with your analysis. However, I think you underestimate the potential of a Saddam unchained. He is a dictatorial, and tyrannical oppressor, that appears motivated to dominate as much of the planet as he is able. His neighbors in the past have checked him when things appeared to be getting out of hand. He has a history of annialating dissidents. Many Iraqis have emmigrated to the three countries you mentioned. He has the potential and demonstrated desire, if left on his own, to capture the oil economy of the world and use it to dominate or rule the regions around him. Many countries on the Eastern Hemisphere have become economically entangled/dependant on the west. That IMO is what keeps countries like Egypt from forming any kind of alliance with him. That and they know they can't trust him. The world continues to shrink and politics continue to merge, making it no longer necessary to physically occupy another country to establish control over it. I see Saddam as a cowboy bent on domination. So do the leaders of Middle Eastern countries. Otherwise, he would probably get support from them. I see no other option than forceably removing him from power.