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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (20061)	3/12/2003 11:14:16 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

So North Korea could do this as well? So could Pakistan or India, Colombia or Mexico, Indonesia or Austraila maybe even the Irish Republican Army. In fact, any university anywhere in the world could do this, could they not? But you think Saddam will go against the entire world. And at this stage, the way things look from a military power perspective, America is indeed the world's military power. The facts show he didn't use such weapons during the Gulf War coalition (emphasis on the word coalition). And he used them under warring conditions against the Iranians and the Kurds. As I understand the geography of Iraq, there's a weakened defensive military position on a key highway not all that far out of Baghdad and this is where the Kurd gassing incident happened. Regarding the Iranians his positions were overrun by a massive attack. I describe the above because I don't think it provides evidence of a tendency on the part of Saddam to all of a sudden go offensively against the whole world with MDM. Do you really think Saddam wants to be king of the world? Or do you think it's a more prudent supposition that he wishes only to become the top dog of the MidEast, and wield the economic power he thinks would come from such a position? Historically, OPEC was formed in Baghdad, and as Carter discovered oil could be used as a weapon, so Saddam probably has a enlarge ego whereby he sees himself in history as the modern day Saladin who'll unite the Middle East, perhaps unite it even. It really can't be all that surprising a strong figure would arise out of the MidEast, what with all that oil. So all of the above in consideration, why then is he not feared by Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait even, when it comes to fear of an invasion from Iraq. Except Kuwait all of those nations are opposed to this war. We are seriously missing the boat by giving up the war against terrorism and substituting it with Saddam as a target. This will only result in severe hatred against America, as more Arabs become incensed with US troops on Arab soil, as what happened in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, if America slaughters Iraqis on a massive scale, we might as well give the substances you've described to the terrorists ourselves. 'Cause one way or another they're gonna get them if they have good reason. Why give them a good reason? Better to do what Bush has not done at all. That is call the world's political and religious leaders together and seek to understand why terrorism exists in the first place. Show that we are a positive force in the world to those who are oppressed, rather than showing ourselves to be a negative force in the world (the only way we'll be perceived if we kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims). Much like treating the drug problem medically instead of criminally; treating the terrorism problem with dialogue and commitment of resources, aid and assistance, helping to create economic self-determination, is a far more powerful weapon than the violence which will only breed more violence. The plain fact is Bush has gone off track, he's not exhausted all remedies and he, like Saddam, wants to be herolike by winning this war, with little to no regard of the consequences. His victory, unfortunately, in order to sustain what he's doing will require yet another one, most likely in Iran. War makes great cover for the fact some think he's not a legitimate president due to the Florida elections and the populare vote and for the fact that America is in a horrible economy. Were this war a needed war, a just war it would certainly be a more truthful one than what we've seen to date. Finally, thanks for sharing your information. Very interesting indeed.

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (20061)	3/12/2003 11:30:19 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

Well, Bill, here's something else to consider. If the Soviets had so much of that stuff, and it's so much cheaper than building nukes, why waste all the money on the nukes? For that matter, why waste all the money on the nukes and bankrupt your government when the other way is a chaper and supposedly equally effective threat? I'm more inclined to think that a once-genius gone crazy would be the one more likely to use such weapons. Certainly more so than a leader of a government. Most leaders of governments wish to remain so, including Saddam. Even Blair, for that matter.