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 : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (5601)	3/5/2003 5:37:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

The arms destruction doesn't mean much. He can destroy a few dozen missiles while hiding 100 more somewhere else or even creating new ones at the same time. Tim

To: Poet who wrote (5601)	3/5/2003 6:52:29 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

voluntary arms destruction The missiles? Did you notice he ONLY did that under EXTREME US pressure? That that is the only way he does ANYTHING? Or did you mean the biological bombs he "disclosed" to the UN? Those biological weapons he didn't have? True, they were buried in a hole in the ground. Do you think he didn't know where that hole was? If so, how did he lead the UN to it? And, true, some of the bomb casings had been punctured. But not all. Now you'd think if he REALLY meant to destroy those, he really would have done a better job, don't you? Like make sure all had been punctured? And pour in solutions to destroy the biological agent inside? But in fact none of that was done. It appears to me that it was originally done with the intention that it would be a safe, secure, hidden place to conceal those weapons if needed. And, if needed, they could be recovered and used.

To: Poet who wrote (5601)	3/5/2003 7:35:47 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

My own opinion is in flux. After having heard Powell's testimony weeks ago, I felt that invasion was justified. Now, after the developments wrt the voluntary arms destruction, Turkey and western Europe, I no longer think invasion is prudent. I would ask you to ponder the nature of those two developments you are juxtaposing. In Powell's testimony, the point was pretty powerfully made that the Iraqis are being dishonest with the arms inspectors, have been tipped off as to where those inspectors are going, have some items of a nature they are not supposed to have that are being removed from or moved away from sites about to be inspected. In short, the Iraqis have, far from committing to the disarmament they "committed" to 12 years ago this month, are committed to keeping whatever they can hide. The "new" developments are that the UN told the Iraqis that over 100 missiles they have acquired violate the restrictions, so the Iraqis have protested but grudgingly and publicly disposed of a handful of those missiles (why not the entire lot; is it really that hard to trash these missiles? Why not just ask the UN to back up a transport plane and load them all up and take them away if you were really committed to getting rid of them?). Turkey has simply decided to look the other way regarding Saddam's transgressions; that doesn't change anything about Powell's testimony or the other things that have occurred. Ditto for Western Europe (which IMO has made this mistake before and not learned from the lesson; not only with Hitler but by letting Milosevic run amok and other examples). If the Iraqis are lying and are hiding and developing stuff they are not supposed to have, which I think Powell proved pretty convincingly, how does destroying a few missiles and failing to convince a few reluctant allies change the fundamental nature of the issue? The way I see it, the "prudence" of not doing this is that the rest of the world (actually, not the rest of the world but some of the world, many with ulterior motives) will think we are nice guys because we "listened" to them. More likely, dictators the world over will perceive us as weak and unwilling to deal with problems even when they get out of hand. I think it would not be prudent to send that message. This is a time in history where it would be a good thing for dictators to hate us (which they will anyway) and fear us.

To: Poet who wrote (5601)	3/6/2003 1:53:17 PM
From: Bicycle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

The more I question the reliability of the information the public is receiving, the less certain I'm becoming. I tend to assign more credibility to Powell and Bush, who I can see and hear on television, than the stories passed on and filtered by journalists. This leaves me sitting on the fence, but tipping toward invasion. I trust our leaders. As you said, the issue shifts almost daily with the news. I question what's doing the shifting, the issue or the reporting. Bye4Now, FD.