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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (73002)	2/11/2003 1:27:43 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Respond to of 281500

>>And not Powell, that guy now has no credibility after citing irrelevant, outdated and plagiarized "intelligence". << Most Americans seem to feel differently.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (73002)	2/11/2003 3:07:40 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'll cite myself Karen.. Because I can THINK FOR MYSELF, and know enough about the topic... Hawkworth is looking at the military equation.. Is it worth sending US boys to fight, and possibly die, in Iraq to overthrow a rogue dictator who everyone else seems to believe is not a threat. Well, people discounted Hitler too.. He had a "vision" aof being the leader of all the germanic peoples and purifying them... But he didn't have a nuclear defensive shield to hide behind... (How would Europe have reacted had he possessed nuclear weapons before Chamberlain's appeasement at Munich??) Now is Saddam worse than another Hitler? In some ways no, since he thinks of himself as new Saladin.. But in other ways, decidedly yes, since we are fast approaching a demographic "rubicon" where we're going to see millions of disaffected young Arabs falling prey to militants and cries for Jihad... And Saddam achieving nuclear power status, will be in a prime position to control such fanaticism (even if he's not a fervent muslim).. He'll broker a deal, just as the Saudis did, and he'll have the ultimate control over militant Islam since he has the bomb and they have a common goal of destroying the US, Israel, and the West. And he'll have the oil revenues to pay for it.. Politically and socially speaking, achieving nuclear status is a MAJOR desire for all of these Arab powers, and not just to deter Israel, but to asert themselves ahead of the other Arab rivals for control of a United Arab nation.. Now I don't know about you Karen.. But I don't want to see Saddam able to force the entire Arab peninsula under his control (along with the oil).. And I don't want to see him able to harness the sheer brute manpower that the current "baby bubble" in the middle east would grant him access to over the next 5-10 years (or to one of his sons).. There is a strong chance the US will suffer some nasty casualties in this war, especially if Saddam unleashes chemical weapons people like yourself believe he doesn't have (and if you do believe he has them, then you don't care)... And you know why I fear such a scenario Karen?? Because it's WHAT I WOULD DO were I in Saddam's place!!! I'd bide my time, hide my stuff and when I have what I need (a bomb, possibly purchased from N. Korea), then I would impose my will over the other illegitimate regimes in the region.. As for terrorist connections related to Iraq.. one doesn't even need to consider Al-Qaeda. Only only has to look at Abu Nidal, and Abu Abbas (Achille Lauro etc.. :0) where UN citizens have been assassinatied them.. Both of them live(d) in Baghdad, where no one enters without Saddam's security apparatus knowing about it... So you can forget about whether Muhammad Atta met with Iraqi Military Intelligence folks in Prague during spring 2001 (as the Czech's claim)... because the linkage between Saddam and terrorism perpetrated against the US is ALREADY well established. Hawk