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.

Pastimes : NNBM - SI Branch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (24137)	3/3/2003 6:20:41 PM
From: Mannie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 104167

Sorry Tim, as much as I would love to, I promised Rose I wouldn't engage you anymore. Plus, I have my agenda to attend to. scott

To: Sully- who wrote (24137)	3/3/2003 10:37:49 PM
From: elpolvo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 104167

Ö¿Öfie- I wonder if it has to do with the facts, reason or logic I brought to the discussion? It certainly brought out name calling, maligning, obfuscation of the issues, unsupportable excuses & more clear bias. It didn't refute the accuracy of my statements or address the revisionist history & name calling that caused me to respond in the first place. So I have to wonder why it is soooo stupid & pointless to hold a discussion of differing POV's with me? it's because you're never wrong, never mistaken, always superior in intellect, reasoning, command of facts and history. YOU BASTARD GUY! <g> isn't your hat getting too small? you are picking me up at the airport when i come to visit you. you have to, you know... because we are friends... and i am sleeping in your room... YOU PHUCKING GUY! YOU STINK! <g> wash the sheets now! -el kerpal yerpal

To: Sully- who wrote (24137)	3/4/2003 6:02:11 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 104167

The Latest From The Conservative Cato Institute... Bush's Middle East Plans Imperil U.S. Security and Economy by Christopher Preble The Cato Institute March 4, 2003 cato.org [Christopher Preble is director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.] President Bush's Feb. 26 speech for the American Enterprise Institute shows once again his unwavering commitment to a regime change in Iraq. The president's broader message -- that the war on Iraq is a first step in a long march toward promoting democracy throughout the Middle East -- suggests a new phase in American involvement abroad. This new direction will threaten American security, harm economic prosperity, and impinge on individual liberties. Although the president repeated that the "safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat" posed by Saddam Hussein, a war on Iraq makes us all less secure. Witness the recent "Orange Alert" issued by the Department of Homeland Security. If you corner a snake, it may bite. In the same vein, the Bush administration's war warnings, and the presence of nearly 200,000 U.S. troops in nations surrounding Iraq, might precipitate pre-emptive terrorist strikes. Notwithstanding the presumed Iraqi threat, the president spoke eloquently of the plight of the Iraqi people, and of the need for taking action on humanitarian and philosophical grounds. "America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty," he said, "both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq." Bush appealed to his audience, and to all Americans, to assume responsibility for liberating Iraq, even though he admitted such a task would not be easy. Indeed, the president and his supporters have underestimated how difficult it will be to create a free and prosperous Iraq out of the ashes left behind by Saddam Hussein. Promoters of nation-building in Iraq, including many who scorned similar efforts by a Democratic administration a few years ago, point to nation-building successes in Germany and Japan following World War II. Along these same lines, Bush declared that "[r]ebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment" and that the United States would "remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more." But there are still more than 70,000 U.S. troops in Germany and 50,000 in Japan, and this lingering troop presence has given rise to a virulent anti-Americanism. If these "success" stories reflect the model for post-war Iraq, we should expect U.S. troops to remain in this troubled region for many years. On a broader level, liberals and conservatives alike who support a war in Iraq are exhibiting a level of hubris rarely witnessed in human history. Bush is correct, of course, in arguing that, "It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world -- or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim -- is somehow untouched by the" desire for freedom and democracy. But the practical application of that desire cannot be exported by the American military, complete with a "Made in America" stamp. It is perhaps understandable that most Americans see few limits to this nation's ability to spread democracy. But there are limits, and there are costs. An expansive and far-flung U.S. empire -- even an empire dedicated to the noble mission of promoting democracy -- must be policed by an American military already strained to the breaking point. The Bush administration requested $380 billion for the military in the FY 2004 budget, and this request does not include any money for the war in Iraq. Some of the administration's internal estimates predicted that the war could cost as much as $200 billion. Critics fear that it could go higher. The true costs, however, are more difficult to measure. There was an outpouring of international support following the horrific attacks of 9/11. Much of that goodwill has dissipated as world opinion has turned against a Bush administration deemed bent on war at all costs. Those who wish us ill can and will mischaracterize our good intentions. The American people must recognize that a benign mission of liberation may become an obligation of occupation, even if the war on Iraq is completed quickly and with a minimal loss of life. If a lengthy occupation occurs, as seems likely, we should expect that those who already hate us would use the excuse of an American troop presence in the Middle East as a vehicle to promote their mission of violence against Americans around the globe. 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20001-5403 Phone (202) 842-0200 Fax (202) 842-3490 All Rights Reserved © 2003 Cato Institute

To: Sully- who wrote (24137)	3/4/2003 6:16:04 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 104167

This was written by one of President Reagan's top advisors...fyi... One Last Time: The Case Against a War with Iraq by William A. Niskanen The Cato Institute March 3, 2003 cato.org [William A. Niskanen is the chairman of the Cato Institute, a former senior economic adviser to President Reagan, and a long-time defense analyst.] One last time, let me summarize the case against a war with Iraq-hopefully before the shooting starts. Secretary of State Colin Powell has provided substantially more documentation for a view that most of us have shared for some time: Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a liar and he controls some dangerous weapons. But that is not a sufficient basis for another war with Iraq. The administration has yet to challenge any of the following statements that bear on whether Iraq is a serious threat to U.S. national interests: Iraq has not attacked the United States. The administration has provided no evidence that Iraq supported the September 11 attack. Iraq does not have the capability for a direct attack on the United States -- lacking long-range missiles, bombers, and naval forces. Iraq has an indirect capability to attack the United States only by supplying dangerous weapons to a terrorist group that might penetrate the United States. Three conditions, however, bear on the relevance of this indirect capability: Iraq does not have a record of supporting terrorist groups "of a global reach." Iraq is in no way distinctive in its potential for an indirect threat to the United States. A dozen or more national governments that are not friendly to the United States have nuclear, chemical, and/or biological weapons programs at some stage of development. Any terrorist attack that could be clearly attributed to support by Iraq, as was the September 11 attack to the Taliban government in Afghanistan, would clearly provoke a U.S. military response and a regime change in Iraq. Other conditions, however uncontested, are not a clear threat to U.S. national interests and there is no clearly correct U.S. response. They include the following: The Iraqi government is clearly a threat to the Iraqi population. The issue here is whether U.S. interests are clearly served by using military force to overthrow a local tyrant. Iraq is also a potential threat to some of the neighbor countries. The issue here is whether U.S. interests are clearly served by a war with Iraq to prevent such a regional threat from being exercised, even if, as is now the case, the major neighbor governments do not support such a war. A war, of course, is not without costs. In this case, the major cost of a war with Iraq is that it would undermine the continuing and more threatening war against terrorism. Critical intelligence resources would be diverted to the conduct of the war and away from the war against terrorism. Other governments, whose support is not critical to a war in Iraq, may reduce their cooperation in the sharing of intelligence on terrorists and their willingness to arrest and possibly extradite terrorists. And a war with Iraq threatens to enflame the militant Muslims around the world and unify them against the United States. Those of us who live and work in the District of Columbia (and in New York City) would be more threatened by terrorism as a consequence of a U.S. war with Iraq. One other cost of a war with Iraq is that it would be strongly contrary to the centuries-old principle of international law against preventive wars, the principle by which Americans have always distinguished the bad guys from the good guys. A U.S. violation of this principle may invite a more general breakdown of this important principle. A third cost of a war with Iraq would be the casualties of innocent people, both Americans and Iraqis, casualties that are likely to be high in an urban end-game for the Iraqi regime. Compared to these costs, the budget and economic costs of the war, probably less than one percent of one year's U.S. GDP, seem trivial. In summary, Secretary Powell's articulate enumeration provided more detail on Saddam Hussein's deceits and transgressions but no new information that would make a sufficient case for the U.S. to wage a preventive war with Iraq. 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20001-5403 Phone (202) 842-0200 Fax (202) 842-3490 All Rights Reserved © 2003 Cato Institute