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 : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (4470)	3/10/2003 11:14:58 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 8683

Joel Mowbray URL:http://jewishworldreview.com/0303/mowbray.html One last chance --- for the UN newsandopinion.com \| Allowing an almost entirely disgraced entity one last chance for redemption, President Bush Thursday extended a final opportunity to salvage what is left of what used to be an American ally: the United Nations Security Council. By insisting on a vote on a follow-up resolution, Bush is, in his own words, forcing the other members of the council to "show their cards." For those who side with Saddam, there will be no hiding from history. Several countries--under political cover provided by France and Germany--are now getting cold feet, but inaction is the easy way out. Saddam Hussein is not truly disarming--nor will he ever--and lest there be any doubts, the period just before the Gulf War should serve as a powerful reminder of how he operates. Saddam steadfastly refused to back down from his militaristic posturing, but when the writing appeared on the wall, he began making gestures to stave off war, such as releasing the human shields he had held hostage for months. A dozen years later, Saddam apparently thinks his recycled bag of tricks will succeed. After initially saying that he would not destroy the long-range al-Samoud missiles, Saddam did an about-face just before the deadline to do so--even as he continues to build more. But Saddam has yet to destroy some 6,000 bombs and 1,000 tons of mustard gas. Same goes for 10,000 liters of anthrax and 16,000 liters of botulinum toxins. And he hasn't even attempted to show proof that he has destroyed this frightening arsenal. Undeterred by Saddam's noncompliance on numerous fronts, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix is encouraging the Security Council to give his new friend still more time to disarm. Blix acknowledged to the panel last month that Saddam has yet to account for massive amounts of weapons, but he is pointing to the destruction of al-Samoud missiles as proof that Saddam is a changed man. But not even Blix is that foolish--he is merely attempting any tack to produce the "peaceful" outcome he wants. Leaving Saddam in place and his weapons untouched, however, will not mean "peace." Not that that matters to the soft-on-Saddam crowd. With the UN Security Council poised to act, speculation abounds that the U.S. and Britain will eventually embrace compromise language in order to salvage some sort of victory. The Canadian proposal, which many consider the front-runner, would set a firm disarmament deadline of March 31. But what should make that date special when Saddam has let several other circled days on the calendar come and go, not to mention that he could have disarmed any time in the past twelve years? And if the next resolution draws yet another line in the sand, when will "one last chance" mean one last chance? The hymn being sung by members of the Franco-German blockade is that there is no need for another resolution. They're right. Resolution 1441, which followed 16 previous Security Council resolutions, demanded that Saddam would face "serious consequences" if he did not disarm. The unanimously-passed measure did not provide loopholes for Saddam to cart his cache around in mobile units or hide his chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. The UN is so far removed from reality that the "compromise" response is an 18th resolution. Simply passing another resolution is not a "serious consequence." The U.S. is only pushing for a final UN resolution to help British Prime Minister Tony Blair--not a bad motive given how Thatcher-esque he has been in his resolve--but there is a bonus prize involved: allowing the UN to save itself from irrelevancy. As the President reminded the world last September 12, what authority--moral or otherwise--will the UN have left if it allows the repeated and willful violation of terms of surrender it sets following an offensive war? War in Iraq is going to happen, with or without the support of the UN. The U.S. won't be going it alone, though. Dozens of nations have already joined the United States in its quest to liberate Iraq. The only unknown at this point is whether the people of the democratic Federation of Iraq will owe a "thank you" to the UN.

To: calgal who wrote (4470)	3/10/2003 11:23:02 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

Dan Abrams The dishonest arguments against war with Iraq newsandopinion.com \| Democratic Representative and now presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich suggesting that oil is the driving force behind the war. Others have suggested, it's Israel. Still, others saying it's payback for Saddam's assassination attempt on the president's father. WELL ANYONE MAKING these allegations better be willing to defend exactly what they're saying. They're saying this administration is at the least morally corrupt, lying to the American public and the world about their motives and willing to have Americans die for that lie, and at worst, that they're actually abhorrent criminals. That's absurd. Look, this war is not an easy call. Attacking Iraq without more international support may be the wrong decision, may be a dangerous one, but a questionable decision does not make it corrupt. To believe these accusations about oil or payback is to suggest that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction have no real bearing on the decision to invade. And I think to deny that a dangerous despot has those weapons is to deny reality. The fact that Saddam has not accounted for hundreds of known weapons of mass destruction is a serious issue, not a straw man, not created by novelists in this administration. It's real and it's dangerous. And yet, I was one of the first to criticize the administration for trying to link Iraq to al Qaeda. I still believe they undermine their credibility by harping on that supposed connection, with almost no evidence to back it up. It's an argument that does not justify a war. But also, doesn't justify calling the president a criminal. As they say in the world of rap music, "let's keep it real." This is too important for serious people to be making serious allegations that cannot and should not be taken seriously