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: epicure who wrote (20551)	3/13/2003 10:02:30 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 25898

So we need to fight a war now, that might not need to be fought at all, so we can get those boys and girls home? Why don't you tell that to some of the thousands of Reservists who have been called to active duty, being forced to leave their civilians job behind, and often suffering devasting financial difficulties as a result of YOU wanting to keep them over there until YOU decide it's time to start a war.. X.. The US Congress passed an authorization to use war back in October, 2002. We let the UNSC pass 1441 in November with a 15-0 unanimous vote DECLARING IRAQ IN MATERIAL BREACH.. They then gave Saddam exactly 30 days to produce all the documentation related to his weapons programs,.. readmit inspectors, and to IMMEDIATELY comply with 1441. That was months ago, when the US didn't have nearly the quantity of troops in place that it has now.... And the only reason we've seen the limited cooperation we have to date, is merely the result of Saddam giving up just enough to assist the French in actively opposing direct military action. Why don't we just BRING THEM HOME WITHOUT THE WAR? Oh I see... I guess you want BINDING UNSC resolutions ignored and never enforced?? What are you.. French?? Russian?? Does the UN mean anything to you?? You claim you were for Desert Storm in 1991.. Yet, you are perfectly willing to permit Saddam to violate the terms of cease-fire that he claimed to agree to then, and which have laid the foundation for every UN resolution against Iraq since?? I don't think "liberating" Iraq is worth any American lives, and I don't think Iraq is a threat to us, realistically speaking. And Iraq was a threat to us during Desert Storm, but not now?? Where's your dysfunctional logic there?? And besides, UN resolution 1441 states that Saddam's non-compliance represents a threat to peace and international stability in the region. That resolution, once again, was adopted 15-0... That means they all recognize Saddam is a threat to peace and stability, even if you don't. Why else would they all vote for that resolution?? They couldn't deny it and to abstain or vote no would have been too obvious a sign of utter bias on Saddam's behalf. The only difference is whether they want to permit the US to disarm him forcibly, or wait for a chance to try to just make a declaration after a year or two, declaring him in compliance... That way they can get the sanctions lifted and get their lucrative oil deals with Saddam commenced. You're just too obvious X.. Why not just come out and state that you oppose this war because you despise Bush?? Be honest about it.... If it were Clinton making these arguments, you'd be keeping your mouth shut.. (and so would I because I support the idea, not just the man carrying out the idea).. This goes FAR BEYOND Bush.. It's whether the UN will have any credibility in the future or if it's merely become another failed institution such as the League of Nations. Hawk And

To: epicure who wrote (20551)	3/13/2003 10:28:06 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25898

highlights from a FoxNews poll (showing just how far in the minority you are): 10. Do you support or oppose U.S. military action to disarm Iraq and remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein? Is that (support/oppose) strongly or just somewhat? --- Support --- TOT Strngly Smwht 71% 54 17 --- Oppose --- TOT Smwht Strngly(NS) 20 6 14 9 It is estimated that the war in Iraq will cost each U.S. taxpayer about 300 dollars. Do you think it is worth 300 dollars per taxpayer to disarm Iraq and remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power? 1. Yes, it's worth it 69% 2. No, it's not worth it 23 3. (Not sure) 8 12. Which do you think is more likely -- Iraq is completely complying with the existing U.N. resolutions and disarming, or Iraq is lying to the United Nations and continuing to keep and build weapons? 1. Complying 4% 2. Lying 87% 3. (Not sure) 9 16. Who do you think should make the final decision on security matters for the United States –- the United Nations or the United States? (ROTATE) 1. United Nations 21% 2. United States 74 3. (Not sure) 5 20. Participated in any of the recent anti-war protests? 1. Yes 3% 2. No 97% 3. (Not sure) - 22. Who do you think is doing more to achieve real peace in Iraq –- war protesters or soldiers? 1. Protesters 8% 2. Soldiers 75% 3. (Both) 5% 4. (Not sure) 12% foxnews.com