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: JohnM who wrote (81253)	3/11/2003 3:09:10 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

You said this the other day when I asked you the same question as KLP asks you now, i.e., what constitutes an imminent threat on Saddam's part: Message 18676739 I'm deliberately leaving the issue of nuclear weapons off the table because I see that as a part of a bigger issue of finding global means of containing their spread. The UNSC simply has to be a part of that. The language has changed a bit when you reply to the same question posed by KLP. It's now: Third, no one now argues they have a near term nuclear capability. Perhaps you now realize that it is folly to leave the nuclear issue "off the table" in any way shape or form when considering the immediacy of Saddam's threat. I hope so. I think Bush would be remiss in his Constitutional duties if he did so. Unfortunately, your second formulation of what constitutes an immediate threat as respects nuclear weapons gives me plenty of reason to pause, too. I'll refer you to Pollack for my reasons which I assume you reject out of hand as well.

To: JohnM who wrote (81253)	3/11/2003 3:23:14 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

Thanks for your thoughts John. Couple of things though, and the rest we will just have to say TWT.... I still believe we will hear about an AQ and Saddam link...we already know where some of the terrorists were training. Salman Pak. Didn't Powell say there was evidence about funding, and many other things? I believe him. Obviously Bush does too. As well as Tenet. But, the big thing we should remember is: Saddam has BILLIONS of dollars. Money can buy a lot of things. Including various pieces of nuclear and bio and chem weapons. In that 1999 report to the US House on NK I've mentioned many times, if nothing else, read the introduction and conclusion, plus the footnotes. !! The above is confirmed in that report. I believe the 1999 Report on Foreign Relations by William Perry does as well. However, for all our sakes John, let us really send all the good thoughts we can to whatever Greater Power there is, or the Universe ...that an "imminent threat" isn't going to happen. EVER. After 12 years, and all the terrorism that has happened to date, it does seem unlikely, but maybe this time........ Third, no one now argues they have a near term nuclear capability.

To: JohnM who wrote (81253)	3/11/2003 3:38:42 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

John, when we free the people of Iraq, and enter the capital city among joyful cheering Iraqi citizens. When their newly elected leaders hold ceremonies, praising the courage of our President and armed forces in helping to change a nation strangled by tyranny, into a nation full of freedom. When the torture cells are written about, when book after book is published, describing in detail the link between Hussein's regime and the Al Queada networks. Will those who oppose action today apologize for the mistake they made? Will Dashle and the other partisan political players admit they were wrong? Will the protestors for peace hold apologetic marches? Will Jimmy Carter write op-ed pieces admitting he was completely wrong? Of course not. They never apologized to Reagan, and they sure won't apologize to Bush. There were vigorous debates in congress during FDR's day on whether to go to war. But when the votes were cast, and the congress said its piece, we stood as one nation against tyranny and in support of our troops. This important concept has been lost as some bow to the alter of politics at the expense of our national unity. United we should stand. The votes have been counted and the congress has given the President all the authority he needs to wage war agaist the cretin in Baghdad. The day we turn over our sovereignty to the U.N or France, is the day we say goodbye to the greatness of American freedom. Other nations such as France, are simply too immature and corrupt to follow a clear moral path when deciding how to deal with evil. One day in the future, they may mature enough to accept the responsibility of a world decision making body. Who knows, anything is possible. What we do know is they clearly are not ready for this level of responsibility today.

To: JohnM who wrote (81253)	3/11/2003 4:26:55 PM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 281500

This isn't really about Iraq. Rascal@ after911everythingchanged.com

To: JohnM who wrote (81253)	3/14/2003 5:19:13 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'd add only a three things to your excellent analysis, John, to describe my position: 1) defining what is or isn't a WMD has been poorly done. I view non-dirty nukes to be in a separate class, alone. The only thing that could approach it is if someone created and distributed an unstoppable biological weapon. A MOAB is likely to kill more than a gas attack. 2)I do believe Hussein has a long record of supporting terrorists. So do we and others, though we generally legitimize them by renaming them 'freedom fighters'. Have his terrorists attacked us? That's the weakest link in that argument, imo. 3) A greater case for pre-emptive action exists with Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia and Lebanon for supporting terrorists who have attacked Americans in recent years.