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 (6066)	2/6/2003 10:21:54 PM
From: Vitas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

do you remember 9/11? do you think the children of AMERICA should ever experience anything like that again? when the bombs start, remember: This (9/11) will never happen again. repeat

To: PartyTime who wrote (6066)	2/8/2003 1:43:59 PM
From: Machaon	Respond to of 25898

<< Do you think Bush going to war while failing to meet the three moral tests for war could somehow threaten to hurt your friends, family, neighbors or country? >> If it is true, that Saddam is funding and supporting some of the many Muslim terrorists groups, who want to destroy America, then NO. I am more afraid of what terrorists will do, if they are armed with Iraqi biological weapons, than I am worried about whether or not Bush dots the I or crosses the T. << What if his action unleases widespread world terrorism where there perpetrators do not care if they commit suicide in the process. >> Sept 11, 2001, Muslim "suicide" terrorists attacked America. Have you forgotten already?

To: PartyTime who wrote (6066)	2/8/2003 1:57:43 PM
From: BubbaFred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

British military leaders question mission and ethics guardian.co.uk Richard Norton-Taylor Wednesday February 5, 2003 The Guardian 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. Special report The military Focus The Royal Navy Useful links British army Royal Navy RAF Ministry of Defence Nato United Nations