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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (71551)	2/5/2003 4:43:43 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

..thought the argument about nuclear capabilities less powerful in that it lacked as much strong evidentiary base I thought he made it exquisitely clear that the aluminum tubes were intended for nuclear equipment. And that was not all, yet the tubes are highly incriminating. They are used exclusively to process uranium destined for nuclear weapons. No alternative uses whatsoever. The argument that the tubes are only part of the puzzle is specious since to ignore them is to allow Saddam to progress unimpeded towards a bomb.

To: JohnM who wrote (71551)	2/5/2003 4:46:33 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

JohnM, Very powerful presentation. The first public presentation from this administration on this issue in which I felt as if I were being treated as an adult; the rest simply talk down to citizens, ridicule those who disagree or who are skeptical. This was adult to adult. Congrats to Powell. An overly harsh but fair criticism. Given the damage done to reliable sources, this type of presentation could not be made until near the end game. I am pleased to know that you found Powell credible. I hope that Powell's presentation changes the tenor of the debate about the possibility of war. Powell made it clear that there is an issue that needs to be resolved. Unless you reject Powell's credibility, it is no longer possible to argue that war is being considered capriciously or cynically by the Bush administration. Now the debate can move to a serious discussion of the risks of war and the risks of continued containment. Finally, as regards FADG, the charge has been made that folk who were skeptical of the Bush administration plans were closed minded anti-war types. My own experience with the thread has been the reverse. The pro-war types have been closed minded, have refused to deal seriously with skeptical posts, skeptical essays, and the like. I think it behooves us all to stay open minded and to respect one anothers views. A significant amount of the anti-war debate has been to debase the argument for war. There are some serious anti-war arguments made, Mearshemer(sp?), but most of the anti-war argument has been aimed at the character of the people adovacting war and not at their arguments. I have yet to read an anti-war argument that seriously addresses the risks of inaction. Paul

To: JohnM who wrote (71551)	2/5/2003 4:48:26 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

contravention of a Security Council vote? You believe the UN should be able to control what we do. To be precise, you seem to believe we should not do anything without France's permission. Why should we allow a two-bit Euro country, that should never have been a Permanent Security Council member in the first place, (Canada had a much better claim to the seat,) tell us what to do? Why? When did we turn over our Government to the UN? In any case, you know that is not going to stop us. Bush still has to make a convincing case to the American public Why am I not surprised at this statement? I knew it was going to be your reaction. Nothing will ever convince you that we should invade, I guess. I said in the post you are answering that no opinions here have been changed. 3. The Bush administration has to level with the American public as to the costs of an invasion Nobody knows, John. Nobody knows. That's the "Fog of War." jeapordy in which the Bush administration puts the US if it goes to war without deep and wide UNSC support, France will be the only "major" one, in all probability. And I know you refuse to acknowledge that this UNSC support really does not amount to much if they don't go along. They will have cut their throats if they don't get aboard the bandwagon. I think it behooves us all to stay open minded and to respect one anothers views. I think most of us are open minded around the edges, John. I don't expect anyone to change their core beliefs. To sum the situation up, Powell just drove a stake through Saddams Heart. We will warm up the tanks in about two weeks, IMO.