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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (81065)	3/10/2003 10:29:37 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Why We Need a Second U.N. Resolution By Joseph R. Biden Jr.* Editorial The Washington Post Monday, March 10, 2003 <<...Getting to yes on a second resolution will require hard-liners in the Bush administration to do something for which they have shown little aptitude: compromise. Instead of seeking a resolution that says the game is up and war is on, we should show enough flexibility to bring the Security Council with us while keeping the pressure on Hussein. The resolution should combine points that France and others say they want -- more time for Iraq to meet specific disarmament demands -- with a bottom line that we need: a deadline and a clear commitment to use force. We should support a new resolution that lists very specifically the tasks we believe Iraq must accomplish to show it is disarming; sets an early deadline for compliance, say the end of March; and makes clear that if Iraq does not meet the deadline, the international community will use force to disarm it. Saddam Hussein is relentlessly pursuing weapons of mass destruction, abusing his own people and making a mockery of the United Nations. With or without a second U.N. resolution, and barring a coup or last-minute conversion by Hussein, the United States will act to disarm him. But we will be infinitely better off if we act with the United Nations and with as many friends as possible -- not in spite of them. We can succeed if we show real leadership -- the kind of leadership that inspires others to follow...>> *The writer is a U.S. senator from Delaware and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (81065)	3/10/2003 11:12:14 PM
From: paul_philp	Respond to of 281500

Powerful electromagnetic pulses - "E-bombs" - frying computer and communication circuitry. High-power microwave weapons. I have seen senior Pentagon types say that this technology is not ready for primetime and will not be used in Iraq. FWIW. Paul

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (81065)	3/10/2003 11:14:04 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Re Non-lethal weapons: Lemme just try to figure this out. Saddam can and has used VX, Mustard, Saran, and anything other poisons he can get his hands on. No rules We are not supposed to use those, or pepper spray, or tear gas, or narcosis inducers. Seems a bit unfair, but what the Hey, just add another 500 missiles to the first days offensive. And I would hate to be the writer of insurance on those 100 plus palaces. France is going to get hurt by the boycott of French goods. Its so obvious simple and easy. At Parties everwhere esp in Wash, somebody is bound to say " get the French wine out of here" I want to hear Mr Chirac stand up in the UN and kiss goodby to all $4 bil + of his Iraqi oil contracts "My Secretary, France votes to Vuh-=vuh-vuh-vuh -vuh....." "What I mu-mu-mu mean to say is Fu-fu-fu France, will Ve-ve-ve ve...." "OH, H---, France passes" Sig