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: LPS5 who wrote (10281)	2/19/2003 11:06:55 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

More deflection (by PT)..... This issue will soon be moot when the Iraqi populace is throwing roses at the feet of the 101st and 82nd in the next few weeks....

To: LPS5 who wrote (10281)	2/19/2003 12:00:03 PM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 25898

Yes, I am busy. Too busy. And I should be out shoveling more snow--lol! So let me try and surmise my position as follows: Forty-two percent of Iraq's population is comprised of children under 15. There 5.5 million people live in Baghdad. I've got two problems relative to the children: a) The Shock and Awe campaign will be indiscriminate upon Baghdad. America and Britain won't only be bombing military uniforms. b) I've asked--and no one has answered (can you?)--when is the last time a city of 5.5 million people has been invaded and captured in modern warfare? If Saddam holds out and chooses urban combat as a last defense, it'll be bloody. Very, very bloody. This proven by the Battle of Morgadishu. So if the war takes full force, they'll be lots of children innocently killed--by both sides, more so likely by the American bombing. Presently, there is no 'smoking gun' evidence to prove that WDM actually exist in Iraq. Americans are taking the word of a president who has economic distractions, corporate scandal distractions and even some folks who question the very legitimacy of his presidency given what happened in Florida. And one can even include the deep-seated prejudice leftover from what happened to Bush's dad ("why didn't you go into Baghdad and take Saddam out!"). If you recall, Clinton took lots of heat when he bombed Iraq while murked in the sex scandal. If it was logical to question that then, then is it logical to question Bush's motive for going to war? And, as the situation stands now, there is no proof for a need for war, only a speculative surmise that WDM exist and that if these weapons might exist they might be used. It's all if and might. Personally, I don't want my country to kill children based on ifs and mights, especially when there's a question as to what the motive is that would preclude the war. So why are we going to war? Because Powell delivered an emotionally charged presentation to the UN, using evidence much of which has been outright refuted and which, at a minimum, again rests on speculation? I suppose you noted I didn't write anything about oil. More than enough rationally-thinking, intellectually perceptive people have ascribed this also as a possible motive. No one--pro war or anti war--can deny, however, that this is a factor. As much as oil and all of those other possible motives are a factor, for me, personally, so is the issue of those children.