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 (11174)	2/20/2003 8:09:16 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 25898

Simply Politics By John B. Judis, John B. Judis is senior editor of the New Republic. With the Cold War's end, many Americans thought we could close our air raid shelters and take the trillions of dollars that had gone into the military and put them into making our lives better by turning toward the pursuit of happiness rather than the defense of our liberty. And some of that did happen in the last half of the 1990s, during the Clinton-era boom. But only three years into a new century, the United States finds itself plagued by rising unemployment, soaring budget deficits, constricted civil liberties, the threat of terrorist attack and the prospect of a war with, and occupation of, Iraq. We've gone from the best of times to the worst of times. The Bush administration tells us that it is entirely because of Al Qaeda and now Saddam Hussein that we face these difficulties, but the dark clouds that hang over our country are largely the result of Bush administration policies. Take the economy. Sure, an economic downturn was inevitable after the speculative excesses of the '90s, and 9/11 certainly hurt airlines and hotels. But the Bush policies of enormous tax cuts directed at the most wealthy, and equally large increases in military spending, will prolong the current slump well through the decade, leaving large deficits just as baby boomers begin to retire. The nation won't necessarily be in recession, but it will suffer, as it did during the high-deficit Reagan years, from above-average unemployment and below-average growth. And our vaunted advantage over our industrial competitors will narrow. That won't be because of Osama bin Laden; that will be because of George W. Bush. Or take the current prospects of war with Iraq. Bad foreign policy creates bad choices, as in Vietnam in the 1960s. By the time the Iraq issue landed back in the United Nations Security Council this month, Americans had no good options about whether to go to war with Iraq. Doing so could create heavy costs down the road, increase the incidence of terrorism and split our longtime alliances; not doing so could also inspire terrorists and split other longtime alliances. But the question is how we got to this dilemma. We got here because of bad choices. Al Qaeda was an offshoot of the Soviet war in Afghanistan and of the first Gulf War, after which, through an act of folly, we decided to maintain a major military presence in Saudi Arabia -- creating a rallying point for Al Qaeda without improving Saudi security. Though few of Al Qaeda's recruits came from the clash of Israelis and Palestinians, that conflict remained the single greatest source of instability in the Mideast. After 9/11, we had a clear path before us: wage war against Al Qaeda and those regimes that sustained it, while simultaneously waging peace in the Mideast by using our considerable influence to force the Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table. The Bush administration did wage war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But instead of seeking negotiations, the administration sided with Israeli leader Ariel Sharon, who responded to terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians by trying to destroy the Palestinian Authority -- Israel's only viable negotiating partner. That made it impossible for the U.S. to win anything but grudging support from other Arab governments for our conflict with Iraq, and it also inflamed Islamic radicals. As for Iraq, if our initial goal had been the reasonable and important one of preventing Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons, there was a host of options that could have been pursued, such as a demand for inspections coupled with the threat of an air campaign against any potential military target. If these efforts had failed, their failure would have created far more support for an invasion than currently exists. Instead, the Bush administration began by demanding "regime change," declaring its willingness to fight a preventive war, and sending troops. It took the very last, fateful step before it had taken the first. As a result, the troops are there, and we have to use them or risk a credibility crisis. We also face the entirely predictable prospect of an enhanced threat from Al Qaeda -- exactly what the Bush policies set out to eliminate. Secretary of State Colin Powell claims that Bin Laden's latest jeremiad, urging Muslims to commit acts of martyrdom to defend Iraq against the U.S., is evidence of a partnership between Hussein and Bin Laden. What it actually shows is that U.S. foreign policy has managed to accomplish the one thing that it should have avoided: bringing into a tacit alliance two people who were previously at each other's throats and who still hold each other in contempt. And, of course, this new threat has spawned new terrorism alerts and instructions to put duct tape on our windows, stock up on canned peaches and watch out for any swarthy-looking foreigners. It also has provided cover for conservative Republicans who want to roll back our environmental laws and privatize Medicare and Social Security. We are on a fast train to hell, and the question is when the American people are going to decide they want to get off.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (11174)	2/20/2003 8:38:55 PM
From: Vitas	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

>Between 1985-89, US firms exported anthrax to Iraq< good detective work Karen now we have probable cause to go over and find Iraq's anthrax and see if there is a strain match to the anthrax used in the atacks in the U.S. BOMBS AWAY

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (11174)	2/20/2003 9:14:15 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 25898

Au contraire No.. Brumar is right.. we did NOT sell weaponized Anthrax to Iraq.. Anthrax is not particularly rare. You can travel to the Namibian desert and find it running rampant in the region. But for medical research purposes, it's obviously preferable to have pure anthrax.. So if I sell you some fertilizer (ammonium nitrate) and you mix it with some diesel fuel and add a stick of dynamite as a initiator charge for detonating it, does that mean I sold you a bomb?? There are perfectly sound reasons to sell such biological test samples. We do it all the time, with many different nations, most of which are responsible enough not to weaponize it.. Hawk