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 : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dave rose who wrote (17422)	3/6/2003 3:20:41 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 81187

Dave >I ... am not willing to take the chance the we will be faced with weapons which will cause horrific damage to people all over the world. Yes, that is the US position and the reason given for the "Pre-emptive Strike", as it is called. The point is that there is no valid or demonstrable reason for either the US or Britain to entertain that anxiety. 1. Saddam has never attacked the US. In fact, if anything, he was the US' ally and possibly even its friend. In 1981, he was involved in a disastrous war with Iran as the US proxy to get rid of the Ayatollah. Subsequently, and with the knowledge of US ambassador Glasspie, he occupied Kuwait, which was originally part of Iraq, with the intention of turning off the oil production and so cause an increase in the oil price. He did this to pay for his costs in the Iran war. The US was fully aware of the reason for his occupation before he did it and said and did nothing to stop him (Thus, he assumed the US tacitly approved of his action). 2. It is well recognized that Iraq is far weaker today, militarily, than in 1991 when it occupied Kuwait. Iraq has been under very stringent sanctions since then and is short of many essentials --- drugs, food etc. In fact, it is alleged that many children have died of malnutrition. I am not discussing whether Saddam is responsible, all I am saying is that the people are in a weakened state and, consequently, are not a threat to anyone. 3. Saddam has not used WMD against the US. He may have used gas against the Kurds and the Iranians --- he may have sent Scud missiles against Israel and Saudi --- but he did not use gas or biologicals or nuclear against the US --- even when he had the chance to do so . 4. No link has been proven to exist between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In fact, the Iraqi government hates Muslim fundamentalists. So, to suggest that Saddam is arming terrorists is pure fantasy. In fact, if any country has armed all the "bad" guys --- Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi --- that country is the US. Indeed it was the US which "made" all three of these dictators. Maybe you are unaware that 20 years ago, when Iraq fought the US proxy war against Iran, Saddam was the "blue eyed boy" of the West. As far as I am aware, the only "link" between Saddam and "terrorists" is that he has offered money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In fact, I am unaware of any link between him and Hamas, Hesbolah, Islamic Jihad or any other Palestinian "terrorist" organization operating against Israel. Nevertheless, as I see it, if there is any reason for Saddam to be "taken out" it is because Israel doesn't want him around and not for what he has done to, or could do to, the US. >If Hitler was stopped when he first broke the peace treaty we might not have had to suffer through WW2. Do you not agree. The situation that pertained prior the WW2 must be judged in the light of the conditions and personalities that pertained at that time. It is a specious argument, with all due respect, to attempt to relate, retrospectively, one set of unpleasant circumstances to another. There is just no way that Saddam, and the circumstances around him, can be considered to be similar to Hitler together with the circumstances around him. Dave, if you want to resort to the lessons of history I would suggest that you examine the history of Britain and the US in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. Start from the end of WW1 when Britain cut-up the Ottoman Empire into pieces to suit itself like it was a chocolate cake. Then you will know who the actual mischief makers are and also the real reason why both countries are so anxious to occupy Iraq --- a country which has done neither the US nor the UK any harm.

To: dave rose who wrote (17422)	3/6/2003 5:53:34 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81187

Dave, this is where the present US foreign policy comes from --- the Project for the New American Century "Think Tank". newamericancentury.org I have perused some of the articles and I think you will find them to your liking. I have to say, though, that they are not my "cup of tea". From the various articles you will see that the campaign against Saddam was planned long ago, in fact, long before 911. And even before GWB was President.

To: dave rose who wrote (17422)	3/6/2003 6:26:08 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81187

Dave >In my opinion the UN is a useless form for second rate dictators to attack the US for anything it does or doesn't do. It's not only the UN Charter that will be violated by an attack it is also International Law. timesonline.co.uk >>> “In the present circumstances as known to us, if there is no further resolution clearly authorising force, the US and the UK would be acting in violation of international law if they were to attack Iraq.”<<< I presume you do subscribe to the Rule of Law..