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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul_philp who wrote (84960)	3/22/2003 3:03:22 PM
From: margie	Respond to of 281500

Daniel Ellsberg is on CPAN now. I have read the papers of the PNAC and AEI and their ilk. I was just giving a few quotes they mentioned. And I don't like this war or this administration's doctrine. And there are plenty of Democrats there too. It is bipartisan. As Ellsberg says, he didn't want to watch TV this weekend, to watch Shock and Awe, an illegal war, what they are doing (and showing on TV) is a massive war crime.

To: paul_philp who wrote (84960)	3/22/2003 4:43:53 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

Team Satan? Methinks thou has absorbed a bit too much of W's religious certitude. It's a big world out there, and a vastly more differentiated one than the war propagandists would make it out to be.

To: paul_philp who wrote (84960)	3/22/2003 4:49:30 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

In order to sort out the values of anti-war protestors, those who want peace at any price, those who think the operation is about oil, and those who would go solidly by the present international rules of warfare and the oversight oif the UN. Make the assumption it is only about oil............ Which in retrospect it is since without the oil, Iraq would perhaps still be a little known country without modern arms Today Saddam would have kept Kuwait and be in control of nearly 1/2 the world oil supply and armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons ,oil would be higher than $50 a barrel and many nations economies would be in ruins instead of just struggling. We would have many more nuclear power plants around the world with their hazards to off-set the higher energy costs of oil, and that would create more hazards in the way of potential accidents, of the waste storage problems, and of terrorist access. Israel could well be a nuclear wasteland and there most probably would be no other nuclear nation in the ME than Iraq- who would with little doubt use force to prevent their development or destroy them. Now go back and consider whether the Israeli destruction of Saddams reactors was the right choice Consider whether Frances sales of nuclear facilities and science to Iraq , when he had no internal use for those with oil between 50 cents and $1.50 per barrel was the right choice Ask whether the war to give Kuwait back to the Kuwaities was the right choice Ask whether any Nation today would be willing or able to stop Saddams evil plans if he had obtained all he wanted including Kuwait and nuclear weapons and delivery missles. And stop him without losing Israel and many cities and civilians world wide when words have no effect. The shifting sands of time makes it impossible to determine the future when the next action or political position is being shaped by todays or yesterdays events. When faced with a Nation having no respect for any rules except their own, the US. can only try to make the right choice at the right time , whether it is in the political or financial benefit of France or Turkey or whether it is not- when even they cannot yet tell. Saddam could have stopped this conflict and he still can The UN could have stopped this conflict by calling upon NATO or other forces to go in and disarm Saddam as the entire Security Counsel decided was nescessary. Sig @choices.com