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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (160184)	2/6/2003 11:44:20 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578995

People were being killed on CNN everyday, ethnic cleansing was going on, concentration camps with images of people starving. So, these activities outrage you more [morally] than do the actions of Saddam? Or is it just that CNN had access in the Balkins while Saddam controls the media in Iraq? Iraq is not an active war It most certainly is. We paused a war on the basis of Iraq's commitment to disarm. They didn't do it. The war resumes. The war has simply been in a state of pause to see whether Saddam would comply with his commitments; he didn't. ...it is a presumed threat, with lots of constraints keeping it in check. It is a CLEAR threat. The constraints that are keeping it in check today are there only because we are threatening war. We can't keep 300K troops in the region indefinitely, and we can't count on having a strong president year after year. What happens if Hillary Clinton or John Kerry gets elected? We're back where we are today, but with Saddam potentially have nukes. No thanks. It should be obvious that Iraq can be contained diplomatically and by a forceful display, such as Bush has undertaken. Nothing could be further from the truth. You cannot have diplomatic relations with a liar. Period. The entire concept of diplomacy is based on a man's word being good. Once that is not the case, diplomacy is a fool's errand. As pointed out previously, we cannot maintain a "forceful display" indefinitely. We're in the region now, we've still got NK to deal with, we need to solve this problem once and for all, free these people, elminate the threat, and be done with it.

To: Alighieri who wrote (160184)	2/6/2003 12:41:24 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578995

Al Re..Iraq is not an active war... We are in an active war with the terrorists. Powell linked Iraq with the terrorists. Are you calling Powell a liar. Do you know for sure that Powells un-named sources are lying, or are you just hoping. Powell also stated at the start of the speech, that his un-named sources had several collaborators, for each accusation. Is everybody in the world lying to you, because it suits your hatred of GW. Every Dem . candidate got on board, and backed Gw yesterday. How come Kerry, a decorated war vet. was to chicken to challenge Powell, if he thought there was any evidence Powell was lying? They aren't chicken, they know right from wrong, and have decided to get on the right side. It should be obvious that Iraq can be contained diplomatically Did you even bother to listen to Powells speech yesterday. Saddam has 18 trailers fitted with mobile labs making more poisonous gases as we speak. There is a mobile lab in norther Iraq, cooking ricin, where the terrorists who tried to attack France and Britian were trained. Iraq is perfecting the use of small UAV's, small enough to be smuggled, which can be used to spread anthrax,and other deadly gases. Is that your idea of containment. The engineers who designed the Titanic though it never could leak enough to sink it. Well guess again. by a forceful display, such as Bush has undertaken. We don't need to put people's lives at stake in Iraq. What a piece of hogwash. That forceful display, Gw has undertaken, has already put the lives of thousands of US marines at risk, by stationing them in the Gulf, where they can be attacked while they wait. The longer they sit there, the bigger the risk. In addition, just how many yrs. do you think our marines just sit there, as a forceful display, doing nothing. While you are worried about the cost, just think how much time and effort that display will cost our boys in the Gulf. ...and this takes away from terrorists a great recruiting tool, What are you saying here. That if we strike back at the terrorist, they will just get stronger. Isn't that what a loser always says. If you think and act like a loser, you will be a loser. Winners don't run and hide. They show their power, and make the other guy fight on their terms, on the opponents land. Don't ever forget one of the main maxims in war, "Divide and conquer." For centuries, the aim of commanders has been to find a weak spot in the lines, separate the enemy, and conquer. Taking Iraq would split the nations who support terrorism in half. And taking away the potential source of their most powerful weapons, will set them back a long time. It will take a long time for them to overcome that, no matter how many they recuit. plus it does not burden the US with a lenghty occupation which all pundits have said would have a very uncertain outcome. Finally you got something right. rebuilding Iraq will be uncertain, take a long time, and be expensive. Defeating the terrorists will be uncertain, expensive, and take a long time. The big question is, if the latter will be far more expensive, if we don't do the former. LIfe is uncertain. But, we had better look at how wars have been won in the past, and use those examples to win this one, lest we rue the day we were too cheap to put the investment in Iraq.