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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (32995)	2/16/2003 7:52:25 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 59480

Bush Aide Urges U.N. to Stand Up to Iraq URL:http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/5196279.htm GINA HOLLAND Associated Press WASHINGTON - Faced with broad opposition to war at the United Nations, President Bush's national security adviser said Sunday the White House might push a new U.N. plan to force a showdown with Saddam Hussein. Condoleezza Rice said it was becoming more obvious that the Iraqi president would not disarm voluntarily and that the U.N. was letting him get away with it. "Continuing to talk about more time and more time and more time is simply going to relieve pressures on the Iraqis to do what they must do," Rice said on NBC's "Meet The Press." The administration was evaluating all options after being rebuffed Friday at the U.N. Security Council, where members lined up behind France's call for more weapons inspections and against military action. Rice said on "Fox News Sunday" that the administration may ask the U.N. to take up a new resolution authorizing force against Iraq, although she said action was already sanctioned by a previous resolution. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on the same program that the resolution being presented this week by the United States and Britain would likely call for "definitive progress" in the disarmament of Iraq. "If that's rejected, then I think the United States of America is going to have to make some difficult decisions," McCain said. Rice, however, said: "We have not drafted the resolution. We're working it with different parties, with our friends." The United States, she added, was ready to go to war with or without U.N. support. At the same time, the administration seemed focused on pressuring the U.N. to join. "Putting this off is not an option," Rice said. France has led a formidable bloc calling for extended inspections and wants to wait on a resolution at least until March 14. Inspectors report back to the 15-member Security Council on March 1. French President Jacques Chirac outlined his opposition in an interview with Time magazine. He said that "a war of this kind cannot help but give a big lift to terrorism. It would create a large number of little bin Ladens" - a reference to Osama bin Laden. Meanwhile, the chief U.N. nuclear inspector said Sunday that countries opposed to using force against Iraq could change their minds if Baghdad doesn't show more willingness to reveal evidence of weapons programs. Mohamed ElBaradei, who heads the U.N. search for banned weapons along with Hans Blix, told The Associated Press that the onus was on Iraq, not the U.N. inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction, to prove that it had nothing to hide. In her appearances on the Sunday talk shows, Rice repeatedly said that Saddam had weeks, not months, to disarm or face a military strike. But former NATO commander Wesley Clark said on NBC's "Meet The Press" that the White House should consider allowing inspections to seek out weapons of mass destruction and not follow an "artificial deadline." "It's unlikely the inspectors will ever find the so-called smoking gun on this. But if it makes our allies more able to go to their publics and justify their support of our operation, then I think that's important," said Clark, who has been mentioned as a possible Democratic presidential contender. Rice said a confrontation was inevitable with Saddam. "Sooner or later, we believe sooner, the Security Council is going to have to say that he has not taken that final opportunity to comply, and the Security Council is going to have to act, or the United States will have to act with a coalition of the willing," Rice said on Fox. She refused to speculate about the vote possibilities for another Iraq resolution. Christopher Meyer, British ambassador to United States, said on ABC's "This Week" that a decision would be made in the next few days on "the tactics and timing of a second resolution - when to do it, what to put into it, even who's going to table it

To: sandintoes who wrote (32995)	2/16/2003 7:53:52 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Re, Your list: ???? :) I am speechless, for once!! But that activism goes with the territory, and the job, according to them. Why can't they spend time on the solution? That is a better use of time!! Peace and love are preferable, of course, but group demonstrating for peace, to me, is not a solution!! We are past the 1960's!!

To: sandintoes who wrote (32995)	2/16/2003 7:57:19 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

I e-mailed this to family and friends all across the US, and they are now continuing to e-mail it! BTW, he was interviewed on television last night, maybe CNN, and he is very impressive!! Re-Post: Holiday From History By Charles Krauthammer Friday, February 14, 2003; Page A31 URL:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5709-2003Feb13.html The domestic terror alert jumps to 9/11 levels. Heathrow Airport is ringed by tanks. Duct tape and plastic sheeting disappear from Washington store shelves. Osama bin Laden resurfaces. North Korea reopens its plutonium processing plant and threatens preemptive attack. The Second Gulf War is about to begin. This is not the Apocalypse. But it is excellent preparation for it. You don't get to a place like this overnight. It takes at least, oh, a decade. We are now paying the wages of the 1990s, our holiday from history. During that decade, every major challenge to America was deferred. The chief aim of the Clinton administration was to make sure that nothing terrible happened on its watch. Accordingly, every can was kicked down the road: • Iraq: Saddam Hussein continued defying the world and building his arsenal, even as the United States acquiesced to the progressive weakening of U.N. sanctions and then to the expulsion of all weapons inspectors. • North Korea: When it threatened to go nuclear in 1993, Clinton managed to put off the reckoning with an agreement to freeze Pyongyang's program. The agreement -- surprise! -- was a fraud. All the time, the North Koreans were clandestinely enriching uranium. They are now in full nuclear breakout. • Terrorism: The first World Trade Center attack occurred in 1993, followed by the blowing up of two embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Treating terrorism as a problem of law enforcement, Clinton dispatched the FBI -- and the odd cruise missile to ostentatiously kick up some desert sand. Bin Laden was offered up by Sudan in 1996. We turned him away for lack of legal justification. That is how one acts on holiday: Mortal enemies are dealt with not as combatants but as defendants. Clinton flattered himself as looking beyond such mundane problems to a grander transnational vision (global warming, migration and the like), while dispatching American military might to quell "teacup wars" in places such as Bosnia. On June 19, 2000, the Clinton administration solved the rogue-state problem by abolishing the term and replacing it with "states of concern." Unconcerned, the rogues prospered, arming and girding themselves for big wars. Which are now upon us. On Sept. 11, 2001, the cozy illusions and stupid pretensions died. We now recognize the central problem of the 21st century: the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction. True, weapons of mass destruction are not new. What is new is that the knowledge required to make them is no longer esoteric. Anyone with a reasonable education in modern physics, chemistry or biology can brew them. Doomsday has been democratized. There is no avoiding the danger any longer. Last year President Bush's axis-of-evil speech was met with eye-rolling disdain by the sophisticates. One year later the warning has been vindicated in all its parts. Even the United Nations says Iraq must be disarmed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has just (politely) declared North Korea a nuclear outlaw. Iran has announced plans to mine uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel; we have recently discovered two secret Iranian nuclear complexes. We are in a race against time. Once such hostile states establish arsenals, we become self-deterred and they become invulnerable. North Korea may already have crossed that threshold. There is a real question whether we can win the race. Year One of the new era, 2002, passed rather peaceably. Year Two will not: 2003 could be as cataclysmic as 1914 or 1939. Carl Sagan invented a famous formula for calculating the probability of intelligent life in the universe. Estimate the number of planets in the universe and calculate the tiny fraction that might support life and that have had enough evolution to produce intelligence. He prudently added one other factor, however: the odds of extinction. The existence of intelligent life depends not just on creation but on continuity. What is the probability that a civilization will not destroy itself once its very intelligence grants it the means of self-destruction? This planet has been around for 4 billion years, intelligent life for perhaps 200,000, weapons of mass destruction for less than 100. A hundred -- in the eye of the universe, less than a blink. And yet we already find ourselves on the brink. What are the odds that our species will manage to contain this awful knowledge without self-destruction -- not for a billion years or a million or even a thousand, but just through the lifetime of our children? Those are the stakes today. Before our eyes, in a flash, politics has gone cosmic. The question before us is very large and very simple: Can -- and will -- the civilized part of humanity disarm the barbarians who would use the ultimate knowledge for the ultimate destruction? Within months, we will have a good idea whether the answer is yes or no. © 2003 The Washington Post Company

To: sandintoes who wrote (32995)	2/16/2003 8:12:22 PM
From: Findit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

You would think with a list like this, some creative conservative writer would put together a book of quotes from these 'enlightened' stars. I would buy it. Of course there are many more that could be added and our conservative would have to expand to explain the humor and idiocy of their logic. Jim

To: sandintoes who wrote (32995)	2/17/2003 3:01:04 AM
From: sandintoes	Respond to of 59480

In case you're wondering as I was...this is Janeane Garofalo geocities.com Casting-Couch Bolsheviks February 12, 2003 SADDAM HUSSEIN has put the people of Iraq on an "Orange" alert this week in response to Iraqi intelligence picking up an increase in "chatter" out of Hollywood. Actors go into a frenzy whenever they sense that world events could pre-empt their appearances on "Entertainment Tonight." They've been in March Hare mode lately, so Iraq is in a state of high alert. For the past few months, Saddam had been lulled into a sense of security. We haven't heard from Barbra Streisand since she turned with a vengeance to figuring out the difference between Iran and Iraq. George Clooney disappeared, hoping people would forget his inside tip that, in the rush to war, Bush had cut a deal with France so they wouldn't complain when we attack Iraq. That was a month ago, and the French are still resolutely whining. Apparently even the French have more manhood than George Clooney. So things had grown quiet in America's headlong "rush to war," which we've been talking about for over a year now. But in the past week, the anti-war "chatter" out of Hollywood has increased. Singers, models, actors and vegan hysteric Kim Basinger have all come out against the war. Liberals see themselves as part of a deployment. Richard Gere's analysis of the war was: "I keep asking myself where all this personal enmity between George Bush and Saddam Hussein comes from. It's like the story of Captain Ahab and the great white whale from 'Moby-Dick.'" Gere refused to comment when asked whether he had read "Moby-Dick." Fresh from receiving a lifetime achievement award for his geopolitical insights, Dustin Hoffman said that Bush "has taken the events of 9-11 and has manipulated the grief of the country, and I think that's reprehensible." He explained that "this war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil." Hoffman refused comment when asked to spell "hegemony." Madonna has put out the word that her next music video contains a shocking anti-war message, including footage of simulated dead Iraqi babies, which is expected to be a bigger draw than her latest movie, "Swept Away," featuring footage of Madonna in a bathing suit. Three days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Madonna was on stage in Los Angeles exhorting the audience to pray for no retaliation against the perpetrators. Between songs and simulated live sex acts, the always circumspect gay-disco chanteuse explained: "Violence begets violence." When it comes to negative reviews, Madonna's publicist takes a more sanguine view of "retaliation." Even model Kate Moss took time out from her drug habit to really wrap her head around this war issue. Terrified that an attack on Iraq could lead to an attack on Colombia and dry up the supply, she is foursquare against the war. The mascot of the anti-war movement is Janeane Garofalo. Upon hearing Garofalo's pronouncements on Iraq, her manager sputtered, "Ten years in the business and now she's making with the jokes?" When a feminist as strident as Garofalo is defending the Hussein regime, you have to wonder if her newfound sobriety has hit a rough patch. One imagines Saddam Hussein watching Janeane Garofalo on television with more perplexity than satisfaction. Garofalo has said that "dropping bombs on the Iraqis is not going to disarm Saddam." No, it will kill him. That's good enough. Trading in her Gen-X sneer for a nitwit's hysteria, Garofalo warned: "America will pay a very, very high, irrevocable price for this!" The lemon pucker puss said extremist groups will strike us "if we do this war." Things were going just great before we began to "do this war" – that's if you don't count the unpleasantness of Sept. 11. To state the manifestly obvious: Extremist groups are going to hit us eventually anyway. Let's make it a matter of honor and see what they've got. In a modern version of the Iran-Iraq war, actor Sean Penn is accusing Steve Bing, Hollywood producer and general degenerate, of blacklisting him from a film in retaliation for his peacenik activities. (Bing, you'll recall, was our featured Democrat a few months back.) What a smart president would do in these circumstances is sell arms to the weaker party and use the proceeds to fund anti-Saddam contras, then sit back and let the Democrats work themselves into a frenzy about an alleged technical violation of the Boland Amendment. In addition to increased "chatter" from these casting-couch philosophers, Iraqi intelligence has been keeping an eye on a gas explosion on the Senate floor. Not a celebrity except for the substance abuse, Sen. Teddy Kennedy was lowered by crane to the Senate floor last week to denounce the case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell was just wrapping up his presentation to the United Nations when Kennedy began his rebuttal. (Kennedy's position on Iraq is: Let's cross that bridge when we get to it.) Even the Iraqis listened to the case against Iraq with more of an open mind than Kennedy did. They at least paused for a moment before responding. Now that the Iraqis have responded, we can add one more charge to the case against Iraq: Saddam is plagiarizing Teddy Kennedy.

To: sandintoes who wrote (32995)	2/17/2003 3:05:26 AM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

Prolife's celebrity boycott list MARTIN SHEEN--who made millions off war MIKE FARRELL-- ditto BABS--who looks like she was IN a war MEATHEAD REINER AJELICA HUSTON SEAN PENN LOONEY CLOONEY DANNY GLOVER SUSAN SARANDAN RICHARD (i wish i was still a gentleman) GERE ALEC BALWIN JOHN CUSACK feel free to add to this list if you wish. Sheryl Crow Kim Basinger, Matt Damon, Ethan Hawke, Samuel L. Jackson Jessica Lange Woody Harrelson Janeane Garofalo Madonna Dustin Hoffman Kate Moss