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: PartyTime who wrote (4922)	2/2/2003 5:32:10 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 25898

Gee, you don't ask for much, huh? The article mostly argues we should take the Al Qaeda threat more seriously. I have no problem with that proposition. In regard to Iraq, the article merely argues we should continue inspections indefinately and wait till later to deal with Iraq militarily. Here's the part I would most disagree with: But as inspections drag on and incriminating details leak out, stonewalling becomes more difficult and the likelihood of defection grows. The defection of an insider made a gigantic difference in the last round of inspections. Another such defection could do the same in this round. Why squander this time advantage by rushing forward? If and when the hoped-for intelligence breakthrough comes, the Iraqi dictator will not suddenly display a willingness to disarm. But military action at that point will be more focused because we shall better know where Iraq has hidden its weapons. Moreover, it will not come at the huge diplomatic cost that the same action undertaken today will exact. We shouldn't think future intelligence to make any difference. The recent inspections found missiles and nuclear workpapes which should have been disclosed but weren't. And the opponents of action simply minimize the significance and even use the discoveries as an excuse not to take action, arguing the inspections are "working". This will continue in the future no matter what incriminating evidence found. The second part of the article I would disagree with strongly is: The likeliest time for an attack is immediately after the fighting begins in Iraq. With nothing to lose, Saddam Hussein may strike back. As for Al Qaeda, Muslims around the world will interpret a second, post-invasion 9/11 as a counterattack in their defense. The opportunity for Al Qaeda to score a propaganda bonanza by attacking at just this moment is, alas, uniquely good. In other words, we shouldn't attack because Al Qaida will attack us in response. Does anyone really think that Al Qaida is able to strike us today but is holding off to see if we attack Iraq? Al Qaida will attack whenever they can PERIOD. Al Qaida will attack us in the future if we attack Iraq. And they'll attack us in the future if we don't attack.

To: PartyTime who wrote (4922)	2/2/2003 5:55:33 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Partytime, since I've answered your questions, it's only fair if I ask you a couple. 1) I'd like to know your thoughts about the UN choosing Iraq to chair a UN Disarmament Conference and Libya to chair the UN Commission on Human Rights. chron.com 2) What would you say to the Iraq-American doctor who calls for war to liberate the Iraqi people? chron.com It is morally repugnant that people walk in marches across Western cities calling, essentially, for the Iraqi people to be kept in their collective jail with their tormentors. They remember how Saddam refused to accept the oil-for-food program for almost six years after the end of the Persian Gulf War. Those who have marched are either ignorant of the facts and need to educate themselves, or sinister creatures no different from Saddam and his institutionalized murderers, torturers and rapists.

To: PartyTime who wrote (4922)	2/2/2003 7:31:05 PM
From: Fredman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

The Government is more concerned with who to 'fault' and 'blame' than it is the real threat from folks coming from outside our borders. Personally, I think the biggest threat will come from american sympathysers (sp?) from within our borders, folks that will do 'something' and then the government will say something like 'gee, we didn't think of THIS happening.....'. I am truly amazed somebody didn't do something ala Oklahoma City, but at a venue like any MLB baseball game, College or Pro football game, bowl game, anywhere there is a lot of media attention AND lots of people concentrated in one area..... Talk all you want about how security is 'beefed up' at these venues, I don't think it will matter, if someone wants to do something, they will. I seem to remember the Prez saying in a speech to the world after 9/11; 'you are either with us, or you are against us'. One thing there is NO question on is, Iraq is hiding something, a lot of it, WHY ? What are they going to do ? Forget the USA, war, invasion, military buildup, WHAT is Iraq going to do with all the stuff they are hiding if 'we' were not over there ?