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 : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (4637)	2/24/2003 7:24:23 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

CBS: Hussein Will Not Destroy Missiles VOA News 24 Feb 2003, 23:00 UTC voanews.com Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has indicated in an interview that he has no plans to comply with a United Nations demand that he destroy his al-Samoud-2 missiles. American broadcaster Dan Rather, who interviewed President Saddam for CBS television, said the Iraqi leader denied claims by chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix that the missiles can fly beyond the U.N. restrictions. Mr. Blix said he expects Iraq to comply with his order to start destroying the al-Samoud-2 missiles by Saturday. He issued the order last week. Mr. Rather also says President Saddam challenged President Bush to a live televised debate on the possible U.S.-led war to disarm Iraq. The White House dismissed the challenge, saying there can be no debating the need for Saddam Hussein to disarm. The spokesman said President Saddam's refusal to acknowledge that the missiles violate U.N. resolutions is another sign that Baghdad will not disarm. U.N. weapons inspectors continued their inventory of the missile program Monday, visiting two factories that make the missiles' engines and guidance systems. Meanwhile, South African disarmament experts are in Baghdad for meetings with Iraqi officials on better cooperation with the weapons inspectors. South African officials say the delegation will share its expertise on dismantling nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. South Africa had programs for such weapons of mass destruction in the 1970s and 1980s. In the early 1990s, it became the first - and so far only - country in the world to voluntarily dismantle such programs.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (4637)	2/25/2003 9:19:08 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 15987

Hawk, An alternate view--or a possibility for peace. Saddam as mafia chieftan realizes Don "W" is indeed coming after him. What to do? 1. Fake out--Give up as much wmds as necessary to stop the assault and follow as much of #2 as possible. 2. a 180--Offer US a prominent role in rebuilding post-wmd iraq which will democratize--words only. Encourage US oil interests. End of sanctions. Iraq as model for the region in an economic sense. 3. Suicidal battle with US Mafia chieftans dont commit suicide. Terrorists do. They deal even if in the short term. Saddams history pre-1990 doesnt suggest that he couldnt come to some type of accomodation with the US. His old buddy Putin may be the middleman in such a deal. Even if it is #1 that he selects(most likely if #3 is not inevitable) he is so neutered and perhaps so engaged in and economic road to power, that Bush might go along. Without war the price of oil plummets and the stock market goes up. And of course there can be more focus on al quaida. Perhaps saddams intelligence forces can help there as he will be equally as unpopular with al quaida if he bends a knee. Mike@thinkingoutsidetheboxforamoment.com PS Wars inevitability seems to preclude other options. 3-1 odds for war at mike@vegas.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (4637)	2/26/2003 4:50:59 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Now who's getting excited?? :0) "Exasperated", rather.... I already said you are sometimes a very exasperating man :-) Sharon was found "indirectly responsible" because they claimed he did not move to prevent the massacrews No. Because he ALLOWED Phalangist militias to enter the refugee camps and watched as they went on a several day killing spree. I can show you plenty of instances where people are "indirectly responsible" for actions that others have taken How about we let the courts decide?