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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Win Lose or Draw : Be A Steve, Make A Call -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sojourner Smith who wrote (5562)	3/9/2003 10:29:51 AM
From: Sojourner Smith	Respond to of 11447

Since Iraq, would not agree to more inspectors, and the State Dept would not allow the splitting Iraq, war seems the only option. One way to get Turkey to agree a separate Kurdistan would be to let them get a cut of the oil revenue.

To: Sojourner Smith who wrote (5562)	3/9/2003 1:24:45 PM
From: sun-tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11447

Actually I wondering if the best bet now is the create a separate Kurdistan, and defend that, and skip an attack on Iraq. Then get the French and Russians to send in massive amounts of inspection teams with more information on locations of WMD that's a great idea. however, it may require more forethought and patience than typifies our current administration.

To: Sojourner Smith who wrote (5562)	3/9/2003 1:59:32 PM
From: nsumir81	Respond to of 11447

-del-nevermind

To: Sojourner Smith who wrote (5562)	3/9/2003 3:01:24 PM
From: augieboo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11447

Actually I wondering if the best bet now is the create a separate Kurdistan, and defend that, and skip an attack on Iraq. Then get the French and Russians to send in massive amounts of inspection teams with more information on locations of WMD. Problems: [1] Turkey/Kurds (addressed in others' posts); [2] Assumes that French and Russians have any actual interest in finding Saddam's WMD, which I think is quite faulty. All they are interested in is protecting their profits from their deals with Saddam, making more profits from future deals with Saddam, and gaining power for themselves -- Russia in that region and France in Euroland. [3] Agreeing to send in more inspectors for a longer period of time would simply prove to Saddam and every other two-bit POS around the world two things: [a] that the UN is nothing more than a global protection society for dictators.* Remember, UN Resolution 1441 says, in essence, "Saddam, we know that you have WMD and we demand that you produce them now so they may be destroyed; otherwise we will force you to do so militarily." The entire inspection regime currently in place is thus a fraud -- nothing more. 1441 puts the burden on Saddam to SURRENDER HIS WMDs OR PROVE THAT HE HAS NONE, it does not put the burden on the UN to find them, nor does it put the burden on the UN or the US to "prove" that he has them. PROOF IS ASSUMED IN THE RESOLUTION! that the UN specifically exists to protect dictators from the US. Point [a] supra is simply true, in my fairly well studied opinion. The UN has become a protection society of and for those guilty crimes against humanity. One need only look at the UN commissions on Human Rights and Disarmament to see this. Currently, the UN Commission on Human Rights is chaired by Libya. Take a look at what Human Rights Watch thinks of this, hrw.org, and of the Human Rights Commission in general, hrw.org As for Iraq chairing the Commission on Disarmament, I think even the most ardent anti-American nitwit can see the sheer folly in that. As for point supra, that one does not have to be true, and I say we need to prevent it from coming true. Taking down Saddam, with or without the "permission" of the likes of France and Russia is one step toward that purpose.