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 (21274)	3/15/2003 4:51:37 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Did you support US military intervention in Kosovo? Rwanda?

To: epicure who wrote (21274)	3/15/2003 8:29:49 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25898

Saddam is not terrorizing the world neighborhood- he may be bothering his own citizens, Oh?? Would that be because the US/UK and a few other nations have spent BILLIONS on containing, and forcing, him in order abide by the cease fire agreement of 1991?? Yet, he still hid thousands of tonnes of prohibited chemical weapons, part of which were only discovered when his son-in-law defected in 1995 (despite years of "inspections"!!), with thousands of tonnes more still unaccounted for?? Do you think he will just continue hiding them and never put them to use, despite being one of the few leaders who has shown his willingness to use them, rather than just have them as a deterrence?? Do you think he sent his ambassador to Afghanistan merely to partake of some sweet tea, and Koranic religious studies, instead of what was reportedly an attempt to form an alliance with Bin Laden?? And as is reported today, did he not illegally import chemicals generally useful ONLY for solid rocket fuel motors, from China and BROKERED by a French company?? but we should not make that our problem- not when the rest of the world will blame us for it and when it will cause a Muslim holy war. I don't know where you have been hiding X.. But the Arab world ALREADY BLAMES US for the state they are in, economically, socially, and politically. We have taken a relatively "hands off" approach to creating moderation and political diversity in the Middle East. And we're being blamed for the despotic regimes who exist in the area and gorge themselves on the resources of their countries they rule, shipping the money off to western banks while the people are left unemployed and without hope. And with the pressing demographic trend in the middle east, where in some countries 50% of the population is below the age of 18, this economic pressure will only grow unless the West takes DRAMATIC action to create economic and political change in the region.. Unless these young muslims have the opportunity to obtain jobs, spouses, and raise families, they are going to seek their fame and fortune waging Jihad. Doing nothing will only guarantee this eventuality. And Iraq is the first step. It's the most secular state in the region, and it possesses the tremendous potential economic wealth to reshape the entire region, forcing other Arab states to modernize in order to keep up with it. All we have to do is get rid of Saddam and his Baathists and create a definable structure from which all people's in Iraq find it more advantageous to get along than to remain divisive. I can't tell you if it will be successful... But if we do nothing, then by our inaction we will have planted the seeds of far worse turmoil to come... Just imagine X.. What if 50% of the population of your state was below the age of 18.. What kind of dramatic economic pressures (and opportunities) would that place upon its economy?? The Baby Boom in the US created the drive and motivation for the economy we have right now (read Harry Dent's books). They were(are) the "pig going through the python".. the "elephant in the room" that everyone wants to ignore because there are no easy answer to dealing with the tremendous turmoil that is about to result. But you don't solve the problem by doing nothing. And you can't solve it if you don't get your "hands dirty" and oppose some the powerful special interests who are intent on preserving the status quo (France, Germany, Russia, and China) and keeping the middle east an economic backwater. It's part of draining the swamp where terrorism festers. And we have a prime justification for starting with Iraq because of Saddam's intransigence regarding his broken promises to disarm and become a respectable member of the international community.. But you want the US to be the police force in this case, You didn't seem to oppose it in Kuwait back in 1991.. What's the difference?? Same war is being fought now, since it NEVER really ended. That war could only end if Saddam held to his side of the bargain. But he hasn't.. and the war is about be reinitiated and brought to its only logical conclusion... his ouster. Now do you finally realize it is not a good idea to beat children? I've never advocated "beating children".. I advocated measured use of force when the situation requires it. If a kid, who has been punished for being bad, continues to defy me and ignore taking their punishment, one has to escalate up until I "get their attention".. If they threaten me, then I don't wait for them to pull a knife, or kill me in my sleep... You seem to think Saddam isn't dangerous.. But he truly is. He controls a financial gold mine, which could pay for a military machine that would make North Korea's look like a review of toy soldiers. All he needs are nuclear weapons and he'll have the shield from which to hide and do exactly that... NO ONE, not even the Israelis, would dare touch him then. And he would force every other oil producing state to swear their allegiance to him. And you know something.. I wouldn't take odds that some very corrupt elements in France, Russia, or China, possibly with the help of N. Korea or Pakistan, isn't inclined to assist Saddam in obtaining nuclear weapons in order to preserve their economic interests with his government. Were I them, I would consider it (so long as I could maintain plausible deniability).. After all, we're talking about some REALLY BIG MONEY when it comes to who control those oil fields. Speaking of control... I was pondering the thought today as to how to ensure that the greatest majority of Iraqis benefit from those oil proceeds, as opposed to some major powerful governing faction. Money equates to power.. Thus, it's imperative that no one power is able to control or benefit from those oil revenues. They belong to the Iraqi people. So how about a program similar to what exists in Alaska with their "permanent fund". The Iraqi government would have to place all proceeds, above and beyond revenues required for government expenditures, into that fund and distribute them each and every year to every family (not sure about mimicing Alaska with regard to their distribution to every individual). This would ensure that the Iraqi government would have to be accountable for its expenditures because it would amount to money out each Iraqi's pocket every year... I would appreciate others, with more knowledge of the operations of the "permanent fund" piping in here.. Hawk