SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LTK007 who wrote (992)3/21/2003 6:35:45 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 21614
 
believe me we are well aware of it. I am employed at a global corporation and the staff is afraid to travel. The management is cursing the Bush administration, this is a fortune 500 company.

When you read these internet war threads, I think it attracts the am radio crowd.. people that are interested in war etc. There is a great deal of unrest about what Bush has done, and why he has done it from the voters. A lot of people don't think he had any mandate for this.



To: LTK007 who wrote (992)3/21/2003 6:42:18 PM
From: Original Mad Dog  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 21614
 
I spent much of last week overseas, and that wasn't the reaction at all.

Most of it was, "Saddam is vile, he should have been dealt with long ago, but gee, I don't think it will work."

I actually found more exasperation with the French position than with the U.S., though they felt the U.S. would benefit from a softer tone. (this was in the UK, but from people from several nationalities, including two French and two Turks). They all praised Clinton, who advocated doing exactly what Bush is doing now, but then backed off so he could attend to his impeachment hearings that week:

cnn.com

Read that speech. It shares a lot with Bush's advocacy about dealing with the problem now.



To: LTK007 who wrote (992)3/21/2003 7:07:07 PM
From: Machaon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21614
 
<< I never thought i see the day when i lived in the most despised country in the world; but that day has come. >>

The life of a hero is always lonely. That is why there are so few heroes.

America saves Kosovo. The world hates America's sacrifice.

America saves Kuwait. The world hates America.

America rescues Afghanistan.

America rescues Europe from Hitler.

America wins the cold war against Russia, freeing Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Poland, East Germany, Romania.

Sorry that you have such a low regard for America.



To: LTK007 who wrote (992)3/21/2003 8:37:05 PM
From: jlallen  Respond to of 21614
 
LOL!

Get a grip....



To: LTK007 who wrote (992)3/21/2003 9:35:23 PM
From: AK2004  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21614
 
re: We are quite insane you know.
speak for yourself, please



To: LTK007 who wrote (992)3/21/2003 9:48:57 PM
From: Doug R  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 21614
 
THE MORON MAJORITY
Tue Mar 18,10:11 PM ET

By Ted Rall

An American Warlord Races to Waterloo

NEW YORK--Now it's official: most Americans are idiots.

Decades of budget cuts in education are finally yielding results, a fact confirmed by CNN's poll of March 16, which shows that an astonishing 51 percent of the public believe that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

There is no reason to think that. None. True, George W. Bush has asserted the existence of indirect links between low-level Al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence officials--a lame lie repeatedly denied by the CIA (news - web sites)--but even our professional prevaricator has never gone so far as to accuse Saddam of direct involvement in 9-11. Despite their increasingly tenuous grasp on reality, not even the Bush Administration's most fervent hawks deny that the secular dictator of Iraq (news - web sites) is a mortal enemy of the Islamist extremists of Al Qaeda. No mainstream media outlet has ever reported otherwise.

So why do these pinheads think such a thing?

Simple: the official Bushie pretexts given for launching a unilateral invasion of Iraq don't stick. If Saddam was going to launch nukes or anthrax missiles in our direction, he would have done so during the last dozen years, while American warplanes were pulverizing his military installations with weekly bombing raids. He'd certainly let us have it this week, now that Bush is revving up the war he wanted all along--but he won't, because he can't.

Furthermore, no one really believes that the GOP is interested in liberating the oppressed people of Iraq. America's role in the world, after all, typically involves funding dictators--as Bush is currently doing in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan---not democrats.

Like a befuddled chemistry lab student who works backwards from the answer in order to ensure the correct results, the Moron Majority have talked themselves into an excuse they can live with for a war they can't otherwise morally justify. Denial, after all, isn't just a river in Egypt.

By a two-to-one margin, Americans think that their country should adhere to its tradition of attacking other countries in self-defense only, never preemptively. Thirty-seven percent say that they support an invasion of Iraq only with UN approval. This war against Iraq fulfills neither of these conditions, so Americans have managed to morph Bush's insinuations about a Saddam-Al Qaeda link into full-on blame.

Sure, we're about to begin killing innocent men, women and children over in Iraq. It's not self-defense, so let's just call it "vengeance for 9-11." Does that work for you? Great. Osama's gotta be laughing like a hyena now that the heat's off.

There is some good news in all this. I know, "good" is a relative term if you're reading this in a bomb shelter under Baghdad or trapped at your work station under the rubble of an office building some Islamist wired and brought down on your head. But the war on Iraq is likely to lead to the political demise of the man whose evil and illegitimate rule currently represents the greatest threat to stability and peace in the world: George W. Bush.

Win or lose, Iraq will probably be Bush's Waterloo. Victory over Saddam's armed forces is a given; just as a company's announcement of previously-anticipated profits fails to deliver an uptick in stock price, military success is already assumed by the market of public opinion. That's why, even after it became evident that he'd be fighting this war alone (plus Tony Blair (news - web sites), minus the British public), Bush had to go ahead. His right-wing base, the part of the electorate that craves a belligerent president to protect it from future 9-11s, would have otherwise deserted him.

Even if Bush delivers a best-case scenario--quick defeat, minimal U.S. military and Iraqi civilian casualties--it won't do him any good. His supporters already expect that.

Things are most likely to go wrong when Bush can least afford it, during next year's campaign. Don't believe Kurdish promises to rejoin a federalized Iraq--they've had de facto independence for 12 years and they're not coming back. Turkey is already threatening to invade Iraqi Kurdistan, and they're leaning on their own Kurds. Hoping to neutralize its unruly neighbor, Iran is arming the Shiite majority. Civil war is more than likely, possibly leading to the disintegration of Turkey and an American excuse for an attack on Iran.

It's impossible to predict the effects of prolonged American occupation of an Arab country; increased terrorism, regional instability and even greater Muslim hostility to the U.S. and its allies seem likely. But a failure to establish a long-term U.S. military presence throughout the country could prove even more damaging than a quick pull-out. If Iraq follows Afghanistan (news - web sites) into neglect, political disintegration and anarchy, we'll be able to count our resentful new enemies by the tens of millions.

American alliances and relations with the UN and NATO (news - web sites) have been stretched to the breaking point. By launching an illegal, unsanctioned invasion of a sovereign nation, the U.S. has abandoned its moral standing. We are, by definition, a rogue state. More frightening than that, foreign leaders from Paris to Berlin to Beijing to Moscow are starting to count more on one another than on us. This means trouble for us, sure, but also for Bush as we notice our nation's loss of prestige.

As always, however, the fools will save us from themselves. The 51 percent who currently believe what is patently false will ultimately conclude that they were duped by Bush (though it's not really true). Like stupid Americans before them (those who bought into the Domino Theory, Joe McCarthy and the necessity of interning Japanese-Americans in concentration camps), they'll wonder what the hell they were thinking. And they'll have lots of time to think about it, what with not having a job and all.



Then they'll vote for an Unnamed Democrat, currently leading Bush 48 to 44 percent in the Quinnipiac poll released March 6.

(Ted Rall is the author of "Gas War: The Truth Behind the American Occupation of Afghanistan," an analysis of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline and the motivations behind the war on terrorism.



To: LTK007 who wrote (992)3/22/2003 8:44:41 AM
From: Bald Eagle  Respond to of 21614
 
Victims of tyranny back military action
By Hamida Ghafour
(Filed: 21/03/2003)

When Abtehale Al-Hussaini is accused of betraying Islam by supporting war on Iraq, she recites a harrowing set of statistics: 40 relatives executed, including four cousins, three uncles, two aunts, and a grandparent.

She holds one man responsible: Saddam Hussein.

"So ask me again why do I want this war?" she said. "People who say there is another way haven't a clue what is happening in Iraq."

Miss Al-Hussaini, 21, who lives in Southampton, is anxiously awaiting news of relatives who remain in Baghdad under threat of being gassed by their own leader.

Her views represent those of the sliver of the British Muslim population that supports military intervention. Most oppose the use of force, as shown by a YouGov poll conducted for The Telegraph last December.

But Iraqis like Miss Al-Hussaini, whose family has first-hand experience of Saddam's rule, believe Tony Blair's intentions for a liberated Iraq may be honourable.

Yesterday, other exiles delivered messages and letters of support to Downing Street telling of the horror of life under Saddam Hussein.

Miss Al-Hussaini's parents, Amal and Hazem, live in exile in north London. They fled from Baghdad after the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war but not before it took a heavy toll on her family.

Many of Miss Al-Hussaini's uncles and cousins were imprisoned. Eight aunts were jailed at the notorious Abu Ghraib jail outside Baghdad on charges of supporting opposition factions.

She said: "Some rioters set the prison on fire. Six of my aunts escaped and ran to the Iranian border but the other two were raped and later executed."

Still, she considers herself lucky. "I lived through that war with Iran. Some of my parents' friends watched as their babies were burned alive, or cooked over a stove in front of them."

Among other supporters of war, Mahdy Surche, 30, had doubts about British and American intentions but said that after 24 years of Saddam, there was no choice. "America has not supported Kurds in the past. After the last Gulf war they left us. But I am willing to back them now," he said over tea in a Kurdish cafe in the Handsworth district of Birmingham. "What choice is there?"

Mr Surche is among 50,000 Kurds living in Britain. He was jailed and tortured three times, he says, on charges of supporting the opposition before seeking asylum in Britain in 1999.

"When they kill you they put your body in a box and tell your family to come pick it up," he said. "If they have shot you with a bullet your family is sent a bill for the cost of the bullet."

Mr Surche's elderly mother and younger brother remain in Arbil, a Kurdish controlled city in northern Iraq. When he last spoke to them a week ago they were resigned to the possibility of being gassed by Saddam's soldiers. "My mother said to me, 'My son, don't worry about what will happen to us. We cannot do anything about it'."

He added: "So I am ready and happy to fight with British troops. I'm ready to fight for my nation. Anyone is better than Saddam."

It is a view not normally heard from British Muslims. Most would agree with Arfan Sharif, 23, a charity worker, who said he did not believe America had the "moral authority" to decide post-war Iraq's future.

"Let's look at America's past support of Pinochet, or their bombing of Cambodia. Or supporting Indonesia when they invaded East Timor. There is a history of mistrust of Americans."

Mr Sharif also was suspicious of America's intentions regarding Iraq's oil once Saddam was driven out.

He said: "What if the people decide they want to nationalise their oil industry to rebuild the country?"

But Azad Mirza, a Kurd who arrived in Britain three years ago, said he was tired of waiting for another uprising because they have failed in the past.

"This is the day we've been waiting for," he said. "We Kurds are tired.

"We've been living in the dark for so long. At last, the light may finally come out and shine on us."

22 February 2003: Washington to sideline exile groups
17 February 2003: Blair makes use of Iraqi student's private email message
16 February 2003: It's a just war, say Iraq's exiles
14 February 2003: Exiles call on Saddam to step down
7 December 2002: Most UK Muslims oppose war

Related reports

Dictator's TV speech









© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy Policy.