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: PartyTime who wrote (21872)	3/16/2003 8:14:38 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 25898

why do the Administrations reasons for waging this war keep changing? I don't believe they have changed. Bush has stated from the beginning that Saddam needs to either be ousted, or politically castrated to the extent that he's no longer a source of instability in the region (unlikely).. But he sells the idea to different folks with different VALID perspectives. Saddam is a terrorist, and DOES support terrorism... Saddam HAS sought to create alliances with other terrorist groups like Al-Qaida, in order to use them as his proxy army against the US. And I have no doubt that, were Saddam to obtain the means to strike the US without immediately drawing our vengeance and being wiped out, he'd do so in a heartbeat, since we represent the chief impediment to his imperialistic agenda. Some people, like myself, need only become fed up with Saddam's constant defiance of UN binding resolutions, to justify ousting him. If only because the UN must stand for something, and I'm DAMN AFRAID that he, or his sons, might someday be able to subjugate the Arabian peninsula from behind a nuclear shield. I'm even MORE AFRAID of the demographic trend, since there is little we can do to stop it.. At best, we can hope to direct and channel it in a positive direction. Hawk

To: PartyTime who wrote (21872)	3/16/2003 8:19:02 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

What's so wrong about the statements the President made in this interview with Jim Lehrer on PBS? THE PRESIDENT: The United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We'd like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example. Think how many people can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax. And think about how it's not just a question of whether Saddam Hussein might put them on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it to some city of people he wanted to destroy. Think about all the terrorists and drug runners and other bad actors that could just parade through Baghdad to pick up their stores if we don't take the strongest possible action. I far prefer the United Nations. I far prefer the inspectors. I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing. But if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken. And that is not a threat. I have shown that I do not relish this sort of thing. Every time it's discussed around here, I said, you know, one of the great luxuries of being the world's only superpower for a while -- and it won't last forever probably, but for a while -- is that there is always time enough to kill. And, therefore, we have a moral responsibility to show restraint and to seek partnerships and alliances. And I've done that. But I don't want to have to explain to my grandchildren why we took a powder on what we think is a very serious biological and chemical weapons program, potentially, by a country that has already used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds -- their own people.