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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (80662)	3/9/2003 9:33:46 AM
From: quehubo	Respond to of 281500

<<...It's not just about disarmament its about a NeoCONservative agenda to remake a Middle Eastern country and establish a democratic beach head over in Iraq.>> Bingo! - I understand this very well. You understand it very as well it appears, but do not agree. The President who has taken an oath to protect us has made a decision that he thinks is correct. Many Americans have died to obtain the terms from Iraq to cease hostilities. Iraq has not complied with the terms of the first cease fire and has given every indication that they are developing capabilities that would make the price of liberation even higher in the future. The value of the sacrifices of the people who are in harms way to should not be discounted. The safest future we can have in the USA is one where the present course Mid East is altered with a move toward modernity. A liberated Iraq will provide the model to start this transformation. People worry that we wont have any allies in Iraq. Even if Russia, France, Germany and China veto our resolution. They will be anxiously seeking to participate in the rebuilding of Iraq. They will do what ever is required once the smoke is cleared to ensure they can regain a foothold in Iraq. As far as provoking terrorists by invading Iraq, I think that is the weakest argument made for not liberating Iraq. So if we dont invade Iraq, we get attacked and if we do invade Iraq we get attacked more. By who? Expect to be attacked, war was declared upon us. With wide open borders to the north and the south we will be exposed for years. We wont have the political will to do what is necessary at the borders for years, if it is even possible. If we let Saddam continue to fester in the meantime it will be too late. What is all this chatter about Iraq not being a threat to the USA? He has our jugular veins within striking distance. Have you noticed our much oil there is within his striking distance? Take a look at this. simmonsco-intl.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (80662)	3/9/2003 11:03:24 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There has got to be a better way to deal with Saddam. There isn't, scott. Neither you, nor anyone else, has been able to come up with a viable alternative. So continue to post the carping criticism until the liberation starts. But don't post any "schadenfreude" about the operation after it does start.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (80662)	3/9/2003 11:46:14 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<< I pray that The U.N. Security Council and our President will find a way to disarm Saddam and avoid a dangerous and unnecessary war. btw, I didn't even mention my concern about what 'a pre-emptive war' in Iraq might do to our fragile economy or our nation's credibility around the world...And then there's all the innocent Iraqis who may be killed...There has got to be a better way to deal with Saddam. >>> The only other proposal has been more Inspections so fruitless that something else is needed. What we actually do in this war may be different than what the public is told so assumptions based on past conflicts can be in error. 1. I assume ,or have been told, that Saddam himself is Ground Zero this time. If we get him on the first shot it could end within hours. His Generals have our phone number. 2. We could possibly march sedately toward Bagdad, with very few nearby shots being fired, preceded by leaflet- dropping aircraft, dropping white flags, saying the time is now to surrender and here is how to do it- where to go. " We come not to fight, but to depose Saddam" which civilians would probably approve of. As far as the casualties and blood and guts, what do we say, when we meet the Almighty, to the 30,000 Marines who died in taking back just one small Island in the Pacific from the Japanese? " Sorry, buddies, but the Freedoms you fought for no longer exist, we let other countries develop WMD's and the US is under attack by anthrax, people are hiding and afraid, airliners no longer fly because they are getting shot down by missiles. or flown into buildings." " We saw it coming but did nothing about it. I guess your descendants are nothing but chickens. Some did volunteer, we did have the capability to prevent it, but France and other politicians prevented us from taking the needed action" Sig

To: stockman_scott who wrote (80662)	3/9/2003 2:43:43 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 281500

back to Congress for an authorization to go to war, pbs.org JOINT RESOLUTION ON IRAQ October 11, 2002 Congress passes a bipartisan resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force, acting alone if necessary, in order to ensure that Iraq disarms any weapons of mass destruction. policyalmanac.org H.J.Res. 114 was introduced by Speaker Hastert on October 2, 2002. It was reported from the International Relations Committee, as amended, by a vote of 31-11 on October 3, 2002. On October 10, 2002, the bill was agreed to in the House by vote of 296 - 133 (Roll No. 455). On October 11, 2002, the bill was agreed to in the Senate by a vote of 77 - 23. (Record Vote Number: 237).