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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (9333)	2/11/2003 2:53:39 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14610

In 1991 we were already in Iraq... why did we stop in going after Saddam.... I mean what kind of deal was struck? Now, of all of a sudden we can't wait to get him? What kind of deal was struck? Actually, that's a matter of public record: Message 18565176 I encourage everyone interested in the matter to start reading the full text of everything that is happening, and ignoring the media spin. The deal that was struck in 1991 to leave Saddam in power was quite plain. He agreed to continuous monitoring and inspections, a complete defanging, and good behavior at all times in the future. He agreed to these things as a condition for staying in power. He agreed to specifics. Here's one (and there are many others, if you want me to go on): Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities; Has he done this? He kicked the inspectors out after obstructing them for seven years, and only after they started to get close to things that have been banned. As for the 150km range ballistic missiles he is restricted to, note this excerpt (accompanied by photographs) that Secretary Powell presented to the Security Council last week: What I want you to know today is that Iraq has programs that are intended to produce ballistic missiles that fly 1,000 kilometers. One program is pursuing a liquid fuel missile that would be able to fly more than 1,200 kilometers. And you can see from this map, as well as I can, who will be in danger of these missiles. As part of this effort, another little piece of evidence, Iraq has built an engine test stand that is larger than anything it has ever had. Notice the dramatic difference in size between the test stand on the left, the old one, and the new one on the right. Note the large exhaust vent. This is where the flame from the engine comes out. The exhaust on the right test stand is five times longer than the one on the left. The one on the left was used for short-range missile. The one on the right is clearly intended for long-range missiles that can fly 1,200 kilometers. This photograph was taken in April of 2002. Since then, the test stand has been finished and a roof has been put over it so it will be harder for satellites to see what's going on underneath the test stand. That's the deal that was struck. Those are specifics about how the deal has been ignored. History is replete with examples of dictators and violent leaders who agreed to restraints only to violate those restraints when given the opportunity. Anti-U.S. rhetoric aside, this is just an another case where somebody with a horrifically violent history has flouted agreements and the international community for decades. We have a choice: we can hold him to account, or we can let him behave as he pleases. I choose to support the "holding him to account" course of action. Others choose to let him behave as he pleases. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (9333)	2/11/2003 3:06:18 PM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

I actually agree with much of what you say. We part company in what to do after the event. I would be willing to bomb these countries and yes - KILL EVERY LAST AIR BREATHING HUMAN in the region. I have no moral problem with that - NONE. But since we aren't going to do that I think the mission is going to require a long stay - years. I also think that occupation may be our only choice to avoid an economic disaster. Are we being told all of the reason for the invasion? Not even close. Are there reasons that seem less than tasteful? Yep! Is this something I want? Not a chance. But since I have no control I at least want it done right. If that means the extermination of all indigenous people then so be it. We have f*cked around before and left people standing that have later become a problem. If we're going to do it then lets not make that same mistake again. As you mentioned - Hitler was a maniac and so are several leaders around the world today. The difference is that the maniacs of today can wipe out societies with the press of a button. I'd prefer to be the "wiper" as opposed to the "wipee." I think our desires are the same but I think the extent that I'd be willing to go to may be different. That's not all that unusual with me. We enjoy a lifestyle in this country that I'm not willing to give up. We've earned it and I would like to keep it. If that means we have to butcher a couple hundred million I can live with that. What I can't live with ( and you touched on this ) is allowing our young men and women to die in volumes to accomplish this when it can be done without the need to send in troops too early. I fully expect that we will see retaliation here at home and that bothers me as well. For every event that happens here I would vaporize countless thousands of people in suspected terrorist nations. Terrorists may be able to kill and disrupt our society on an isolated basis but nobody has killing in volume down to a science like the USA. If its a war of attrition they wish to wage than I say lets go and lets pull out the stops.