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: Steeny who wrote (22896)	3/19/2003 12:27:29 AM
From: Doug R	Respond to of 25898

France was pushing for 3 more months to give the current inspection regime a more proper timeframe to continue meaningful work. They did not, as the loudest neocons proclaim, promise a veto of ANY resolution to threaten the use military force. The Military-Industrial-Think Tank Complex Corporate Think Tanks and the Doctrine of Aggressive Militarism By William Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca The aggressive first-strike military strategy now animating U.S. policy toward Iraq was developed during the 1990s by a network of corporate-backed conservative think tanks. Each major element of the Bush administration's national security strategy -- from the doctrines of preemptive strikes and "regime change" in Iraq, to its aggressive nuclear posture and commitment to deploying a Star Wars-style missile defense system -- was developed and refined before the Bush administration took office, at corporate-backed conservative think tanks like the Center for Security Policy, the National Institute for Public Policy and the Project for a New American Century. Unilateralist ideologues formerly affiliated with these think tanks, along with the 32 major administration appointees who are former executives with, consultants for, or significant shareholders of top defense contractors, are driving U.S. foreign and military policy. ------------------------------------------- Why is the British Prime Minister the only person who seems to be unaware of the US hawks' agenda. Terry Jones Sunday March 2, 2003 George W. Bush and his advisers' stated aim is to ensure that America and American interests dominate the entire world for the foreseeable future. And what's more they make no bones of the fact that they intend to achieve this without diplomacy - that's old hat. What PNAC intend to do is enforce the Pax Americana through military might. Does Tony Blair know that? Has Tony Blair read the PNAC Report called "Rebuilding Americas Defenses 2000"? It refers to the new technologies of warfare and goes on: "Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate." So when George Bush and his colleagues talk about Saddam Hussein posing a "threat" to America - they don't mean he's going to drop bombs on Washington (how on earth could he without committing national suicide?) - what they mean is that he poses a threat to American military dominance in the Middle East. Does Tony Blair know that's what they mean? In fact, does Tony Blair know that President Bush's advisers regard Saddam Hussein as merely an excuse for military action in the area? The PNAC Report of 2000 states: "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." So Iraq is merely "the immediate justification" and Saddam's regime is not so important as establishing American military might in the Gulf. Does Tony Blair know that? If he has read PNAC's Report he knows that he is simply aiding US right-wing militarism and extremist Republican plans for world domination. Surely in such a cause he would not be prepared to expose the British people to the nightmare of permanent terrorist threats and attacks. Surely for such a cause he would not be prepared to set fire to the Middle East, to destabilize the entire world for the foreseeable future and - most important perhaps - to risk his own political neck by pursuing an evil and almost universally despised policy. On the other hand, if Tony Blair, has not read "Rebuilding Americas Defenses 2000" or gone to the PNAC website to learn exactly what motivates Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz, and so on then why the hell hasn't he?

To: Steeny who wrote (22896)	3/19/2003 12:27:29 AM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

n/a

To: Steeny who wrote (22896)	3/19/2003 12:27:30 AM
From: Doug R	Respond to of 25898

n/a

To: Steeny who wrote (22896)	3/19/2003 9:44:45 AM
From: DavesM	Respond to of 25898

Prove it! List the U.S. military weapon systems that was sold to Iraq. re:"We were one of Iraq's biggest arms supplier up until the Gulfwar so don't bame Germany up until 1991."

To: Steeny who wrote (22896)	3/19/2003 2:19:31 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 25898

First of all: I'm no parrot. Read my posts. I changed my mind only very recently on France. Yes... I would agree.. Parrot is not the first avian conparison I would make... As for reading your posts, maybe you need to reread them yourself, and spend some time verifying your facts. We were one of Iraq's biggest arms supplier up until the Gulfwar so don't bame Germany up until 1991. And that's why the Iraqis drive all of those T-72s and fly Migs and Sukhois, as well as Mirages, instead of M-60s and M-113s, as well as F-16s and F-15s???... Are you saying we bought all of this stuff from the Russians and French, and then transferred it to Iraq? Interesting conspiracy theory.. Hawk