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

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2567)	3/24/2003 8:13:50 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 21614

This is a slicker conspiracy theory than your usual crud.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2567)	3/24/2003 8:17:07 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 21614

This is better than the garbage you peddle: Message 18737189 siliconinvestor.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2567)	3/24/2003 9:44:38 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 21614

Message 18744605

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2567)	3/24/2003 9:51:49 PM
From: Ron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

"F___ Saddam. We're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room. A year later, Bush's outburst has been translated into action, as cruise missiles and smart bombs slam into Baghdad. But the apparent simplicity of his message belies the gravity at hand. Sure, the outcome is certain: America will win the war, and Saddam will be taken out. But what is unfolding in Iraq is far bigger than regime change or even the elimination of dangerous weapons. The U.S. has launched a war unlike any it has fought in the past. This one is being waged not to defend against an enemy that has attacked the U.S. or its interests but to pre-empt the possibility that one day it might do so. The war has turned much of the world against America. Even in countries that have joined the "coalition of the willing," big majorities view it as the impetuous action of a superpower led by a bully. This divide threatens to emasculate a United Nations that failed to channel a diplomatic settlement or brand the war as legitimate. The endgame will see the U.S. front and center, attempting to remake not merely Iraq but the entire region. The hope is that the Middle East, a cockpit of instability for decades, will eventually settle into habits of democracy, prosperity and peace. The risks are that Washington's rupture with some of its closest allies will deepen and that the war will become a cause for which a new generation of terrorists can be recruited. How did we get here? In one sense, this war is easy to explain. Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who hates America and has shown a wicked fondness for acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Since Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. has been acutely aware of what can happen when powerful weapons fall into the hands of those with no compunction about their use and no sympathy for those they kill. Put those facts together, and you can argue that Saddam's days were numbered from the moment the attacks on New York City and Washington happened. But that suggests a fatalistic inevitability to the story and ignores the dramatic shifts in opinion and influence among Washington's key players. In truth, this war is just as much about an idea—that Iraq is but the first step in an American-led effort to make the world a safer place. For some in the Administration, the principles that have shaped policy on Iraq are generally applicable; they could be used with other nations, like Iran or North Korea, that have or threaten to acquire terrible weapons. The least understood story of the Iraq crisis is how the idea behind it took root and eventually brought America to the edge of Baghdad. In this battle march of an idea, there are four central players: President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and—least known to the general public—Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. One by one, these men signed on to the imperative of taking on Iraq and its weapons, and sending a message to the world. This story does not start where one might suppose, on the day last year when Bush identified Iraq—with Iran and North Korea—as part of the "axis of evil." Nor does it start with the horrors of Sept. 11. The confrontation with Iraq can be traced to 1991 and the end of what some Administration officials have since last fall called "the first Gulf War"—the one waged and won by the President's father. SOUNDING THE ALARM When senior advisers of the first President Bush—including Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Cheney, then Secretary of Defense—gathered in the Oval Office on Wednesday afternoon, Feb. 27, 1991, they agreed that their military and political objectives in the Persian Gulf had been met. Saddam's forces, which had invaded Kuwait seven months before, had been routed. General Norman Schwarzkopf, commander in chief of Operation Desert Storm, concurred in the judgment. Bush had a clear goal for the war: it was not to topple Saddam, much less to march on Baghdad, but to drive the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. The President had assembled a grand coalition, including armies from many Arab states, behind that aim, and he was not inclined to deviate from it. "Bush was a firm believer in sticking with his word," says a former senior aide. "It was his word and his promises that got that coalition together. There was never any doubt in his mind that the war had to end and we couldn't go to Baghdad." time.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2567)	3/24/2003 10:03:15 PM
From: Ed Huang	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

>>EMPIRE, OIL & ISRAEL<< Did the author mean the sequence of the above reasons important? The sequences can look like this: _EMPIRE, OIL, ISRAEL (same as above), or _ISRAEL, OIL, EMPIRE, or _OIL, EMPIRE, ISRAEL, or _OIL, ISRAEL, EMPIRE, or _EMPIRE OIL, ISRAEL, or _ISRAEL OIL, EMPIRE, or _ISRAEL, EMPIRE, OIL, or _ISRAEL EMPIRE, OIL, or... Of course, disarming Saddam's WMDs or Fighting 9/11 terroists or Liberating Iraq or Democratizing the whole Middle East, or all the above?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2567)	3/25/2003 12:58:04 AM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Respond to of 21614

Fabulous article.....thanks for posting it. I sent it off to several friends. Pat

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2567)	3/25/2003 3:30:36 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 21614

Re: EMPIRE, OIL & ISRAEL [...] The polarization and anger within this country will strain us to the breaking point. Across the world, anger at America's actions in this conflict will rise and rise and rise until we are, truly and at last, completely despised and completely alone. Warned you so: Message 18732961 The war's hidden agenda boils down to the West-Bankization of Iraq, a country of 25 million people... The US military is poised to commit the same atrocities against Iraqi civilians as Sharon and his Judeofascist clique have committed in Palestine. The whole war is turning into an American War Crime. Gus