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: Eldon Slife who wrote (17454)	3/8/2003 4:25:47 PM
From: loantech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81149

Eldon I agree. Same as Molosevich (spelling). Searle maybe USA should have allowed his (Molosevich) march to continue through the Balkans? Maybe South Africa should do it?? <g> Tom

To: Eldon Slife who wrote (17454)	3/8/2003 6:00:42 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 81149

Eldon, thank you for reading my rantings and also for taking the trouble to reply. Please believe me, I do appreciate your anxiety about Saddam as well as most of the reasons given for why he should be removed. I also accept that he is an evil man and that the world would be better off without him. In the circumstances, however, you must appreciate that he was not responsible for 911 and, as I understand it, that is where the anger of the American people is directed. Saddam is merely a substitute for the one who really did it. thememoryhole.com Unfortunately, I am old enough to have learned the truth in the expression that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Although I am fortunate not to have been in war myself, I have read and learned that there is probably no greater evil than war, itself. Thus, to me, it makes no sense to combat one form of evil by starting another, possibly a far greater one and especially when the intention is supposedly to do good. I have also read that many ex-servicemen, including generals and other top "brass", from the US and UK are opposed to war with Iraq for a variety of reasons. One of these reasons is that the war could unleash a backlash from Muslims everywhere who perceive that this war is being started by the US at the behest of the "Zionists" and for the benefit of Israel. There is also a widespread view that the US is doing it to gain control of the oil but that is another story. As I have stated repeatedly, I would like to give Mr Blix & Co a chance to finish their work. I know the US and UK view is that Saddam should have disarmed "instantly" but that is clearly impossible for a particular reason. This reason concerns the biological and chemical materials which the Iraqis say they destroyed in 1991 and for which there does not seem to be any documentation. General Al Saadi, the Iraqi head of "disarmamentation", said this himself at his very first press conference. Even Donald Rumsfeld quipped that, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In fact, I heard Richard Perle talk about this very problem in a BBC interview this evening. Of course, and understandably, he says that the discrepancy between what Iraq said they once had and what they now say they have now is because they have hidden it. I say "understandably" because Perle has been wanting to remove Saddam for many years already and is looking for any reason to do it. A reason why I believe that there is no particular threat from these WMD, if he has them, is that Saddam knows what the retaliation will be if he tries something. The US and UK governments, and many people on the forum, say that they are not prepared to trust him --- but this is not about trust. No-one trusts him. It's simply that he knows what will happen to him if he uses them. He's toast! Which brings me to his apparent reluctance to comply with the dictates of Resolution 1441. Is he playing "chicken"? --- simply so that he can hide some old VX gas and a bit of anthrax! With 250,000 troops on his border and hundreds of airplanes ready to carpet-bomb him! If he is, then he is a most remarkable man. He has nerves of steel and the courage of a lion. He should go to Las Vegas and compete in the championship for the world's best poker player! There is, of course, another explanation as to why he doesn't own up and show the stuff --- he hasn't got it. And that's the explanation which I believe is most likely, and the reason why I would like to give the weapons inspectors as long as they require to satisfy themselves.

To: Eldon Slife who wrote (17454)	3/9/2003 10:07:56 AM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81149

Eldon >Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He has killed over 1 million of his own people in the last decade.. Like Hitler, there is only one option in dealing with Hussein. Take him out of his position of power with whatever force is necessary. I have just come upon this article by Jude Wanniski which addresses this very aspect. polyconomics.com >>>Saddam Did Not Commit Genocide! .... I have been arguing for the last two years that I did not agree with those who have been advising the President that Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer, an Iraqi Hitler who committed genocide by having his army kill Iraqi Kurds during the war with Iran and in its immediate aftermath. I have based much of my case on the reports of the U.S. Army War College that were published in 1990 and on contemporaneous newspaper accounts. The good news is that the New York Times last week ran a major op-ed by the team leader of the War College reports, Dr. Stephen Pelletiere, after spending considerable time vetting his arguments and finding them to be authoritative. ------ I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them. Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja. Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?<<< Maybe this answers the question. Just two days after 9-11, before any evidence had surfaced as to who was behind it, JINSA was already pointing fingers at Iraq! jinsa.org >>>A long investigation to prove Osama Bin Laden's guilt with prosecutorial certainty is entirely unnecessary. He is guilty in word and deed. His history is the source of his culpability. The same holds true for Saddam Hussein. Our actions in the past certainly were not forceful enough, and now we must seize the opportunity to alter this pattern of passivity. In response to the attack on September 11, 2001 JINSA calls on the United States to: Halt all US purchases of Iraqi oil under the UN Oil for Food Program and to provide all necessary support to the Iraq National Congress, including direct American military support, to effect a regime change in Iraq.<<<