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.

Strategies & Market Trends : P&S and STO Death Blow's -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (28763)	3/1/2003 3:20:53 PM
From: sun-tzu	Respond to of 30712

well...i must admit you are right. one is either for the war, not for the war or ambivalent (pretty rare in these parts -g/ng-). citing a source and interpreting that source is rather subjective. personally, i wish all this stuff was left to the appropriate threads. sorry for coming down on your statement in that way. it was inappropriate.

To: mishedlo who wrote (28763)	3/1/2003 3:26:30 PM
From: Mike M	Respond to of 30712

mish it is hard to ignore your "ranting" here. <<There is no doubt that Powell's presentation to the UN was from a plagiarized 10 year old, student document. That is a fact. >> There is plenty of doubt. I heard every word of his presentation on C-span. That allegation is a bunch of crap. Powell took the issue to the Security Council and walked through it bit by bit. He provided actual conversation translated communication intercepts which clearly showed Iraq was in the process of hiding things from the inspectors. He showed satellite photos of facilities and demonstrated how analysts were able to confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq was circumventing previous resolutions and agreed upon restrictions. Did you even hear the speech or are you again quoting one of your "acclaimed sources"? <<We do know that world opinion is against this war. That is a fact as well. Turkey just now, turned down a bribe via a vote in parliament. >> That is a preposterous argument. You can pick and choose your issues. The world is a big place. There is no question that leaders of certain countries that we have seldom found accord are opposed to this war. Who can blame France and Russia? To them oil certainly is an issue. Both have sold their souls to Iraq for oil rights. Interesting that you choose to believe them over our own President despite the fact that their best interest has nothing to do with the protection of the Iraqi people and everything to do with their own selfish interests. Can there be other reasons that France and Russia are opposed to this war. You bet. It will be interesting once the weapons are found to discover which countries have been willing participants in this subterfuge. France was caught 15 years ago helping Iraq build a nuclear facility which had no apparent intent except to build nuclear weapons. Don't even try to tell me that a country with dirt cheap oil and that has to import uranium was building a reactor to augment power generation. <<There are "several" generals in the last war that advise against this war. That is a fact. >> To date I know of two who have some objections. McPeak and General Wesley Clark. Clark is concerned about the manner in which NATO was dealt with. That is a political issue from a man who has political ambitions. As I said McPeak's issues are unclear until I see what he said in totality. In any event, if you think that holds any water you are clearly mistaken. The generals who prosecuted that war are firmly in favor of the President's actions. Powell? Since his knowledge of the conditions is clearly more current he holds a heck of a lot more water than Clark or McPeak. General Schwartzkopf has also supported the administration's position. So too have many generals who have become political analysts on various news agencies. <<In short, every step of the way it becomes massively harder and harder and harder to believe as credible any reports that show Hussein is 6 months from building nuclear weapons. >> Only in the minds of those who are unwilling to believe. There is no proof because these are the deeds of rogue nations and under the cover of darkness. I, however, am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the evidence will be forthcoming post war. <<Those unfortunately are the facts. IMO that is overwhelming evidence is that he simply can not be trusted and has not told the truth. He has been openly called a liar in several instances in open forum in the senate. >> mish, I don't think you would recognize facts if they hit you squarely in the face. The "he" you are referring to here is unclear because you refer both to Powell and Bush, but you better tone down your rhetoric. The last President was proven to be a liar. There is no conjecture there. This one has done nothing yet to deserve that title. I, for one, take great offense at the suggestion. If you are going to suggest that Congressmen and Senators are saying as much then get your facts down. Who said what and where is the cite? In the mean time keep your spurious accusations to yourself. You suggest that you don't want to be involved in name calling and yet you are quick to pin a label on our President (or Powell) that you have no right to apply. Enough of that!

To: mishedlo who wrote (28763)	3/1/2003 4:06:30 PM
From: Mike M	Respond to of 30712

Oh, and about that "bribe" comment. That money is intended to reimburse Turkey for costs involved in the support. The amount is an extortion rather than a bribe. Turkey knows that the US needs their facilities and airfields to prosecute this war. They are asking for anything they think they can get their hands on. This, despite the fact, that many of the facilities and the airfields were built and or improved with US money in the first place. Moreover, I don't know where you got the news that Turkey has made a final decision. However, the vote remains undecided because it failed to get a "simple" majority despite the 264-250 in favor vote. In the final course, doubt it will be turned down.