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: MSI who wrote (4844)	2/1/2003 9:22:38 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Still no evidence offered of anything. If..if..if. If you had any conflicts of interest on the people you named you would have produced it any of the several times you've been asked for it. So I conclude you have none. And what are you even getting at when you say "holding Israeli passports". Are you saying the people on your list are Israeli citizens? Dual citizenship exists between a lot of countries including Israel. But I seriously doubt any of the folks on your list are such. I guess you could be talking about the subterfuges employed to allow visitors to visit both Israel and Arab countries, most of which bar entry to passports with Israeli stamps in them. This only means one has visited both Israel and Arab countries. anitavacation.com Did you know some countries do not permit entry to travelers whose passports have visas showing they have visited certain other countries? A visa is an endorsement or stamp placed in your passport by a foreign government that permits you to visit that country for a specific purpose and duration. For example, many Arab countries will not allow entry to people whose passports have a visa stamp showing that they have visited Israel. .... So, what do you do when you want to travel to these countries and you have visas and stamps from any restricted countries? There is a way, and it is completely legal, according to the U.S. State Department. You can obtain a second, restricted passport, which, on the surface, looks like any other U.S. passport. However, there is one big exception: it clearly states that it is limited for travel to particular countries only. Lastly, you seem to think my use of the term "vilify" means that I ADMIT that the people on your list are villains. How silly. I said that you are vilifying the people on your list, that is YOU are trying to brand them as villains. And that's true, you are. In fact you want their images and opinions to bear warning labels indicating they are disloyal to the US whenever they appear. See below: Whenever the following appear on the tube or in print, the fact of their citizenship needs to appear next to them, like the warning signs on cigarette packs: "THE VIEWS OF THIS PERSON COULD BE HAZARDOUS TO AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SINCE THEY REPORT TO THE GOV'T OF ISRAEL" * Donald Feith (Under Secretary of Defense) * David Kay (former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector and TV Talking Head) * Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secratary of Defense) * Richard Perle * Eliot Abrams * Rep. Tom Lantos How would you like the proposal to have similar warning labels applied to the images and opinions of people who are members of political groups with anti-American idealogies, like for example, the Workers World Party which organized and ran the recent "peace" protests?

To: MSI who wrote (4844)	2/1/2003 10:33:45 PM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Could he Iraq war have something to do with Iraq's water? Israel has little water, and much of it is polluted. This looms as an extremely serious future problem for the Jewish nation. So here's another reason for the Jewish Lobby pushing America into an invasion of Iraq: not only to get rid of an Arab regime hostile to Israel, and not only to steal its oil, but also to get its water. A War Crime or an Act of War?, By Stephen C. Pelletiere, New York Times, January 31, 2003 "It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion ... The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's 'gassing its own people,' specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein. But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story. I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf ... The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target. And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja ... There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them. In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq. We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East ... In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change. Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades, not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water ... . Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts ... Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?"