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: Bob Mohebbi who wrote (6012)	2/6/2003 8:32:01 PM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 25898

Thanks for the post about depleted uranium. Yet another sad story of which few Americans should be proud of.

To: Bob Mohebbi who wrote (6012)	2/6/2003 8:59:51 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

Thanks for the link, I hadn't visited Cursor.org in a while. I found this article there: Timothy Garton Ash defends his position of "tortured liberal ambivalence" on Iraq guardian.co.uk <<< ... Most people admire decisiveness and despise vacillation. Adversarial party politics demands the immediate taking of stands and the exaggeration of minor difference. The media, fiercely competing for viewers, listeners and readers, cry out for strong, polarised positions: Bush v Saddam, Benn v Thatcher, Hitchens (C) v Hitchens (P). It makes better television, you see. But on Iraq, I would still like to defend a position of tortured liberal ambivalence. Being liberal doesn't mean you always dither in the middle on the hard questions. I was strongly against the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, against the American interventions in Nicaragua and El Salvador, for military intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, and for the war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan, all on good liberal grounds. Iraq is different and more difficult. I see four strong arguments on each side ... >>>

To: Bob Mohebbi who wrote (6012)	2/6/2003 9:14:07 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Focus on Iraq: Powell's UN speech Dissected by Ali Abunimah electronicintifada.net <<< ... The United States and United Kingdom have been cruelly bombing the illegally-declared northern and southern "no-fly zones" for twelve years, largely to limit the influence of Iraq's government to the center of the country. Northern Iraq has been ruled by competing Kurdish factions with United States backing. Since the 1991 Gulf War, the CIA has been operating freely in northern Iraq, and the United States recently acknowledged that its special forces are operating in that part of the country. Powell showed what he said was a satellite photo of the "terrorist camp." If the United States knows where such a camp lies, and has forces in the region, why has it not bombed it or attacked it, as it has bombed so many other installations in northern Iraq? An attack on a "terrorist" installation in northern Iraq requires anything but an invasion of the entire country. Furthermore, if the camp even exists, why would the United States give its occupants notice that it knows where it is, rather than just taking it out, as, say, it took out a car load of alleged "terrorists" in Yemen last year? It just doesn't add up ... >>>