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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (8921)	2/16/2003 3:22:16 PM
From: HG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

Nah...I remember Dubai airport hosted lots of sombre looking aircrafts that were meant to take the bodies back to US <i was working for airport back then>.. Its just for logistical planning...There won't be very many American casualties....Iraqi soldiers are not going to put up a fight, they're battle weary and very happy to surrender. But the relentless bombings will kill everyone before US even realises that.... Thats what makes it so sad. The civilians do not war war, their army does not want war. US is chasing one man - Saddam Hussain. The rest are all irrelevant. And Afghanistan seemed like a success back then. I would say it was. But like my obstetrician once told me, delivery is the easiest part of childbirth, its the after that takes more effort. Whats the point of being pro-life if you're going to throw the baby away in the garbage bin ? Whats the point of liberating Afghanistan when its allowed to slide back for lack of effort and planning? In India, the govt decides to give homes to the homeless. It builds good houses and allots them to the homeless people. The homeless, being who they are, sell the houses off at premium prices, go back to new shanties, blow up the money in alcohol, drugs, gambling. Nothing changes except govt coffers keep getting emptied. I think the politicians of both countries are stupid if they don't see that their plans are making things worse, and that a change in strategy is required.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (8921)	2/16/2003 3:23:04 PM
From: ajax99	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Yes and what about the deplete uranium that the USA has used in the past and continues to use - it will last for 4 billion years - the whole world will suffer for that - not just humans.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (8921)	2/16/2003 3:40:09 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Here's a capsulized version of what I think: 1) Saddam has no nuclear weapons capability and in the absence of someone selling him a bomb or few outright (North Korea a few months from now maybe?), I don't think he can make them. The UN inspection team confirms no present Iraqi nuclear capability. 2) I think Saddam does have some chemical weapons on hand. Here's why: >>>"At the same time, throughout the study we cited instances of Iraqi-instigated chemical attacks against Iranian military units. There is no doubt that these occurred; indeed the Iraqis have stated on occasion that they feel justified in using chemicals tactically under certain conditions. However, they deny using chemicals as a weapon of mass destruction, that is against civilians."<<< nybooks.com Pelletier was a CIA analyst at the time the supposed gassing took place. He's been a US Army College professor since 1988. He'd know better than the folks spreading fear on AM radio or FoxNews. And, unlike Bush, who, whatever his motivation, desperately wants this war, Pelletier has no ulterior motivation. The Human Rights Commission, ordinarily an organization with whom I'll always support, has taken a contrary position. I don't yet know how Pelletier and the HRC have matched up when their views are taken together--anyone know? I conclude that Iraq has found it necessary to use chemical weapons in the past, especially when the war against Iran was going badly and such chemicals clearly were used to repel an Iranian attack. So it's my opinion he is trying to hide some degree or quantity of them, which he definitely would use in defense of Baghdad. I reserve a possibility that, should a war come into being, he might, under the present war circumstances, i.e., an invasion of his homeland, attempt to lob a few toward Israel if he still has Scud capability. But I think this would only happen if Bush starts the war. Thus, where there might not be any danger here, Bush, by his actions, could create same. Regarding the biological agents? First keep in mind, I have no technical view in the matter. Nor do I a possess a "technical" view in much of anything--lol. Anyway, I think this is a tough question given virtually every nation, every college campus anywhere, could have similar capability. I'd think the UN inspections team, given time, and especially if the Iraqi scientists interview process becomes more open, eventually it could be proven whether residue from this kind of work remains as trace evidence, if not outright finding such materials. And I'm not sure campers, such as my own, are viable enough for storing such agents long-term. Agents which, as I understand it, have a specific lifetime and are subject to time degradation. I've also got to ask the question: What does Saddam want? Here, I think he wants to be known by historians as a great Arab, one who stood up to the greatest challenges possible, one who remained firm in his belief and one who would wish his policies, dreams and aspirations be adopted by, not necessarily forced upon, other nations. In short, I think the man's on a giant ego trip. He even has his own museum replete with statutes, paintings and photos in his image. He'd probably enjoy having his face on Coca-cola or Pepsi cans (you debate which) everywhere. But I also know that as part of his policies, as I've read about them, his nation is minority among other Arab nations in providing rights to women, that his government is secular and non-religious. Indeed, my conclusion is none of the above seems worth the risk of the body bags delivered into the region, that they become useful for the sons and daughters of America; and that none of the above seems worth the risk of the US and Britain heaping tons of bombs and ammunition on a population of 22 million of which 42 percent are children under the age of 15 and whose dad's could only get a job in the military due to the sanctions.