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: aladin who wrote (72085)	2/7/2003 7:42:31 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Excerpt from a WSJ.com piece that sums up the Dems present position. Sad. >>>>the leading edge of Democrats--congressional leaders, sympathetic journalists, a majority of presidential candidates--have set the tone for the party. They question Mr. Bush's leadership, doubt his credibility, and erect barriers in the path to war. Even Mr. Clinton said we should "listen to the [U.N.]inspectors"--thus, not to Mr. Bush--on the course to take in Iraq. By always saddling the president with another obstacle before going to war, Democrats reinforce their reputation as force-averse. After Colin Powell presented persuasive evidence to the U.N. of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi, his House counterpart, insisted inspectors should be given more time. And Mr. Daschle has argued the American people "need to know more" before war on Iraq is declared and that Mr. Bush should halt "this hurry up approach" to Iraq and deal first with North Korea and terrorism. Neither the case Mr. Bush made against Iraq in his State of the Union address nor Mr. Powell's U.N. presentation swayed Sen. Edward Kennedy, who remains noisily antiwar. Though Congress overwhelmingly approved a war resolution last fall, Mr. Kennedy is now demanding a new vote. "If our goal is disarmament, we are likely to accomplish more by inspections than by war," he said. Sen. John Kerry, also a presidential contender, faulted Mr. Bush for "blustering unilateralism" in the State of the Union. Yes, Mr. Powell delivered "strong evidence," Mr. Kerry said, but Mr. Bush still needs to recruit more allies and work through the U.N. before going to war. Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has generally supported Mr. Bush, but he too has set a fresh hurdle for him--still another U.N. resolution on Iraq. The result of all this? Democrats come across as indecisive, wary of military force, and reflexively uncooperative with the president--just as they did in 1983 when attacking Mr. Reagan's hawkish policy toward the Soviets as warmongering<<<<<

To: aladin who wrote (72085)	2/7/2003 9:30:50 AM
From: Condor	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

What will the direct conflict with Iraq cost? Who knows but $ 3-4 billion might be a number that works eh? Now, for $ 3-4 billion I think that Saddam could be taken out with operatives and infiltration. No risk of major American troop losses, no political and moral fallout from uncontrolled civilian deaths. Yet, this approach is not persued. Why? Perhaps and I mean "perhaps", that plan does not allow for occupation. I suggest that occupation is a desire of the administration. Occupation provides a base of operation in the ME for x number of years(allowing more flexibility for other adventures) and control (not neccessarily theft) of the oil resource (obvious advantage to the US). The problem I have, as do many others, is that this tactic is not debated in the US but is followed as an administrations personal agenda and the unwitting US population are played as dupes. I think the play is extremely dangerous and not a democratic way to "handle" your own citizens. Of course, my presence in this entire debate is offensive to some because I'm Canadian and challenge the wisdom of the plan rather than just lining up behind the US admins. current plan. Well, I have as much right to this forum as any because if the US admin screws this up bigtime we Canadians are going to get the mother of all pies in our face as you (keep your eye on your economy...hence ....ours). Before anyone gets their shat in a twist over this I'd suggest you relax since neither you nor I are going to affect this Act and indeed this entire play. It is scripted and in production now. I would suggest, in the spirit of friendliness, that each of us increase our exposure to gold so as not to profit but to endure if the worst happens. Let's roll. C "War should be the politics of last resort. And when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support." --Secretary of State Colin Powell, writing in "My American Journey"