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: Hawkmoon who wrote (13407)	2/26/2003 6:43:04 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

Hawkmoon--Perhaps you can answer the question. I note neither of your colleagues who support this war has adequately addressed this. Before I ask the question, however, let me point out that America's best reason for moving forward with war is speculation. To date, there's been no beef that has been shown and the intelligence put forward has been caked more in convenience than in fact. Here's the question: How do you propose that Bush capture Baghdad and take over the government within? Baghdad has 5.5 million citizens and it will be protected by the forces who are most loyal to Saddam Hussein, the Republican Guard and special security forces. These forces will number between 100,000 and 200,000, maybe more if the Iraqi regular army units retreat into the city. Moreover, it's rumored that Saddam has issues weapons to the citizens. So how do you propose this happen, this question keyed for consideration purposes in the background of Stalingrad and Morgadishu? I'm interested in learning your answer. By the way, I don't think they talk about this question on Lazarus' new Start the War thread.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (13407)	2/27/2003 4:56:09 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

But from your tone, and choice of workds, it would sound like you actually doubt that Saddam is a supporter of terrorism.. You have to admit that the Bush administration has not made a convincing case of it. A better case can be made for Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan. But no, we have to invade Iraq. It looks very much like Bush decided to invade Iraq and then started frantically to look for an excuse - Iraq is linked to Bin Ladin, no but they have WMDs, oops can't find them but he is evil... Whatever... why are you so intent on preventing actions being taken that lead to his downfall?? Read my lips: I don't care one bit for Saddam. I would be a happy person if his own people took him down tomorrow. What I am opposing is a US invasion of Iraq. I believe it is the worst possible choice at this point, not only because it is WRONG from a human (war = death) and legal (sovereignty) points of view, but also because it will be completely counterproductive as far as "war on terrorism" is concerned. And need I remind, my dear Zonder, that it is Saddam's FAILURE TO COMPLY with UNSC BINDING RESOLUTIONS that justify the overthrow of his government ... THEN IT IS UP TO THE UNSC TO DECIDE WHAT THE NEXT STEP IT, not your warmongering, vigilante cowboy of a president. (If you make me say this one more time, I will be nauseous :-)