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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jmanvegas who wrote (12755)	2/9/2003 12:20:45 AM
From: jmanvegas	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

One more thought Stockman - where were you when Clinton was bombing the sh*t out of Yugoslavia for over 30 days, 24/7, taking out their entire infrastructure. You bring to light negative articles about the Clinton Administration at that time? Yeah - a real politico hombre you are. You should change your name to Politicoman since you hardly ever talk about stocks. jmanvegas

To: jmanvegas who wrote (12755)	2/10/2003 8:25:17 AM
From: SGJ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

<<< But the fast-food McDonald's generation, with their SUV's, bigger houses, plasma TV's, and fat stomachs, only care about their pocketbooks. It's all about money now. It's all about my job. It's all about the economy. It's all about me. If it isn't about the aforementioned, they really don't care or want to know, nor does the current generation of TV idiots have any sense of history. >>>> This is interesting because most people I speak with believe the assumed quick work of a victory in Iraq will fix all that ails the economy. Within weeks afterward, the stock market will boom and companies will start hiring again. Oil will be free.

To: jmanvegas who wrote (12755)	2/11/2003 1:11:45 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Hey Mr. Vegasman: I'm glad you have so much confidence in Bush... Do you get all your news from FoxNews, The Weekly Standard, or William Saffire...? There are A LOT of honorable and patriotic folks against this war. There also are some very bright folks who feel The U.S. will be NO SAFER by going to war and we'll have to spend well over $100 Billion to do it...The highly decorated war hero Colonel David Hackworth feels Al Qaeda is a MUCH BIGGER THREAT than Saddam and he thinks its insane to invade Iraq now before we have secured our homeland -- Bush has NOT released the promised $2.5 Billion to the states for homeland security efforts...IMO, he has dramatically UNDERspent in this area...Many of the reservists getting called up to go over to the Persian Gulf are our 'first responders' around America (the policeman and firemen)...Nothing like making us even more vulnerable to potential terrorist attacks....How are we going to pay for this war in Iraq...? Bush didn't include anything in his recent bloated budget for the war - how responsible is that?....Bush's former Economic Advisor Lindsey estimated the cost of invading Iraq, engineering regime change, and rebuilding the country could be as much as $200 Billion. Am I just critical of Bush all the time...? No....I have posted for well over 5 years on SI and at times was quite critical of Clinton (who I only voted for once) -- I commented on his personal conduct and even on some of his bombing efforts...Yet, IMO if Clinton were president today he would not be rushing into a reckless pre-emptive war that could have some huge UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES...I voted for Bush but am very upset with the way he has been governing our country...I supported him after 9/11 but he ran as a 'moderate' and has governed from the 'hard right' -- Historian David Gergen said tonight on MSNBC that Bush may be out of touch with mainstream America....He has gutted some important environmental laws, failed to develop an effective energy policy, antagonized our allies, and wasted the good will we had around the world after 9/11...I had dinner with some friends on Saturday who are Hedge Fund Managers (2 of them have raised a lot of money for the Repubs over the years)...All of them at the table had no confidence in the way our country's economy is being managed...They are not in favor of a war right now -- and don't see how Iraq and Saddam provide the U.S. with a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER...These large investors are betting against the U.S. dollar, investing in offshore markets and are putting increasing amounts of money in the precious metals sector....Where's Bush's economic leadership...? He is hyperfocussing on Iraq and comes across like an arrogant cowboy who wants to shoot from the hip and get the job done quickly...I don't think he's made the case for war at all and he doesn't have my support right now. You are entitled to your opinion. regards, -s2 btw, here's a link to an article by 2 of the world's top foreign policy experts -- they contend that the 'vigilant containment' of Iraq can and will work... foreignpolicy.com Why spend over $100 Billion tax dollars to go to war when we don't have to...? Why kill thousands of innocent Iraqis and U.S. soldiers when we have other options...? War should be THE LAST RESORT....Who would Jesus bomb..?

To: jmanvegas who wrote (12755)	2/11/2003 1:27:50 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Feature: CIA veterans' warning on Iraq war -- they are asking bush to "re-read" the CIA report that pointed out: "The forces fueling hatred of the United States and fueling al Qaida recruiting are not being addressed" and that "the underlying causes that drive terrorists will persist." By Anwar Iqbal From the International Desk Published 2/9/2003 3:10 PM WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (UPI) -- CIA veterans have warned the Bush administration not to go to war against Iraq, saying that doing so would further widen the divide between the Western and Islamic worlds and increase the incidence of terrorism. In a statement sent to media organizations earlier this week, the retired CIA officials also referred to an agency assessment report last fall, which, they said, opposed a military offensive against Iraq. They urged the Bush administration to "re-read" the CIA report that pointed out: "The forces fueling hatred of the United States and fueling al Qaida recruiting are not being addressed" and that "the underlying causes that drive terrorists will persist." That CIA report cited a Gallup poll last year of almost 10,000 Muslims in nine countries, in which respondents described the United States as "ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked and biased." Terrorism, the CIA veterans said, is like malaria. "You don't eliminate malaria by killing the flies. Rather you must drain the swamp. With an invasion of Iraq, the world can expect to be swamped with swamps breeding terrorists. In human terms, your daughters are unlikely to be able to travel abroad in future years without a phalanx of security personnel." Referring to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation at the U.N. last week, the veterans said: "We give him an 'A' for assembling and listing the charges against Iraq, but only a 'C-' in providing context and perspective." Powell, they said, effectively showed that Iraq is not cooperating fully with U.N. Security Council Res. 1441 but "the narrow focus on (the resolution) has diverted attention from the wider picture." The key question, they said, is whether Iraq's flouting of a U.N. resolution justifies war. "Secretary Powell's presentation does not come close to answering it," they observed. The veterans argued that there were other U.N. resolutions that had never been implemented and asked if the United States would be willing to go to war to implement those resolutions as well. They observed that the Arab-Israel conflict was among "the root causes not only of terrorism" but also provided Saddam Hussein with an excuse to arm himself. Challenging the perception that Iraq is a grave threat to the United States, the veterans urged the administration to reconsider its Iraq policy, as presenting Iraq as a threat to the world's only superpower did not sound very convincing. The veterans refer to an Oct. 7, 2002 letter the CIA sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee in which the agency said that the probability is low that Iraq would initiate an attack with weapons of mass destruction or give them to terrorists. That was so unless: "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would be come much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." For now, continued the CIA letter: "Baghdad appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical/biological warfare against the United States." With his back against the wall, "Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons-of-mass-destruction attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." They added: "It is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future. Far from eliminating the threat, it would enhance it exponentially." Discussing the possibility of the Iraqi use of chemical weapons, the veterans said it has been the judgment of the U.S. intelligence community for over 12 years that the likelihood of such use would greatly increase during an offensive aimed at getting rid of Saddam. Referring to Powell's claim that Saddam had recently authorized his field commanders to use chemical weapons, the CIA veterans said: "We find this truly alarming. We do not share the Defense Department's optimism that radio broadcasts and leaflets would induce Iraqi commanders not to obey orders to use such weapons, or that Iraqi generals would remove Saddam Hussein as soon as the first U.S. soldier sets foot in Iraq." They said the last time the United States sent more than 600,000 troops to the Gulf, one of three came back ill -- many with unexplained disorders of the nervous system. "Today's battlefield is likely to be even more sodden with chemicals and is altogether likely to yield tens of thousands more casualties," they added. upi.com Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International