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: goldworldnet who wrote (353818)	2/4/2003 11:31:11 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Yeah right, like we have some other evidence we're not showing. Boy the Bushie apologists will say anything to deflect doubt from their "bold" ole GW. Bottomline on Iraq, he's made half a case against him, but the other half is missing, proof of WMD, terrorism and clear danger. Now we all assume Saddam's got them but we knew that ten eyars ago. But assuming isn't proving. And waiting until we CAN prove it will save a ton of lives and money. What's the big hurry to attack? What? Bush wants to get it over with so he can attack Iran next year? He cant wait to shake off the UN and go unilateral? Never rush a war unless imminent danger is clear and present. There is nothing clear and present about ANY danger from Saddam right now, except as a constant irritation. But Bush's obsession with Iraq and negligence on economic/domestic issues is also an irritation. This Iraq obsession is keeping our markets queered and harming our international reputation. It's also hurting the war on terror. Remember the war on terror?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (353818)	2/4/2003 11:32:03 PM
From: Win-Lose-Draw	Respond to of 769667

uh...hello...saddam already knows it. it's not about telling him, it's about telling you and me and the rest of this so-called democracy about what we are doing and why we are justified in killing a whole lot of people. has the citizenry already forgotten the lies and lessons of vietnam?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (353818)	2/4/2003 11:32:57 PM
From: steve dietrich	Respond to of 769667

So why haven't they clued the inspectors in so that they could confirm what the govt. knows? I know Security reasons, is their excuse; but the how we know wouldn't have to be revealed to anyone. So that answer doesn't fly with me.

To: goldworldnet who wrote (353818)	2/5/2003 12:11:30 AM
From: asenna1	Respond to of 769667

British military leaders question mission and ethics An undercurrent of profound unease over a war against Iraq is sweeping through Britain's military establishment, with senior commanders worried about confused objectives and the ethics of launching a pre-emptive strike. Serious concerns were reflected yesterday by several well-placed sources close to the Ministry of Defence who, because of the sensitivity of the issue, insisted on remaining anonymous. "There is general disquiet not just about the issue of UN resolutions but about the ethical dimension," one said. "There is a feeling that in order to attack there has to be some kind of aggression in the opposite direction. This would be a first". These underlying concerns were reflected last week by General Sir Jack Deverell, commander-in-chief of allied forces, Northern Europe, who told the BBC he would not like to go to war without the support of the country. It has also been echoed by a string of former military officers, including General Sir Roger Wheeler, who was head of the army until 2000, General Sir Michael Rose, former UN commander in Bosnia, and Major-General Patrick Cordingley, commander of the 'Desert Rats' armoured brigade in the 1991 Gulf war. Sir Roger said yesterday: "If we are going to war, we need the backing of the international community and the country and that means a second [UN] resolution. The military need to know what the political objectives are". A number of well-placed sources pointed to what they called confused objectives - whether action was in pursuit of regime change, or the discovery and destruction of weapons of mass destruction. "What if there aren't any [such weapons] or you can never find them?", asked one source close to Whitehall's military advisers. Britain's military commanders hope that the Iraqi regime will "implode" after a massive bombing assault by the US. "What happens then?" asked another source."Do you go in, or stand and watch?" Whatever happens, defence officials admit, the US will ask British and other European countries to stay on in Iraq to maintain law and order. "Obviously we will be in Iraq for several years to come", one senior defence official said yesterday. However, sources pointed out that any significant British forces remaining in Iraq would have serious implications for the defence budget. There is growing frustration among the British military because they still have not been told about their role in US operational plans. British intelligence agencies, meanwhile, maintained yesterday there was no evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida terrorist networks. Richard Norton-Taylor Wednesday February 5, 2003 The Guardian guardian.co.uk