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: matthew (Hijacked) who wrote (3521)	3/26/2003 7:16:27 PM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

The ironic thing is that the U.S. has more WMDs Weapons of Mass Destruction then any other country in the world. More hypocracy on our part. It's OK if we go ballastic on Iraq, because we're somehow morally superior and it's we can kill and attack at will. There is deep hypocracy in U.S. foreign policy. Someday, perhaps not even this Century, but someday we as Americans will have to face up to it and start treating other countries the way we would like to be treated. The Golden Rule.

To: matthew (Hijacked) who wrote (3521)	3/26/2003 8:01:52 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

Can anyone explain the big deal with WMD? The term itself sounds like nothing more than a media "sound-byte" used for propaganda for the gullible. Sure it's a sound bite. Isn't everything in politics? Legally, the shoe bomb was classified as a WMD! Most people take the reasonable approach of WMD refers to Nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons [lethal ones]. We exclude cluster bombs, daisy cutters and MOAB from being WMD. Israel itself has WMDs We wouldn't, but because Israel has WMD, you would expect all the countries around Israel to want WMD. Hussein might be an arsehole, he might be a murderer, he might even be a child molester, but the fact of the matter is that WE do not really know. I think there's enough out there to be convinced that Saddam is a pretty nasty dictator....but in the 1980s he was our dictator. We needed a new [pro-US] dictator after we lost our 1970s dictator, the Shah. This is not a new phenomena of US foreign policy...in the early part of 1903 we were negotiating with the country of Columbia to dig a canal through the Isthmus of Panama. For an up front payment and reasonable annual fees, all we wanted was control of the Panama Canal in perpetuity. The Senate of Columbia thought "in perpetuity" was longer than they wanted to sign up for and failed to ratify the agreement. By sheer coincidence, no doubt, there arose anti-government sentiment on the Isthmus of Panama. The US, being a freedom loving country wanted to help those freedom loving people on the Isthmus, and as luck would have it, we had some warships available to help out those freedom loving people get under the thumb of the oppressive Columbians. <s> Before 1903 ended, Panama was independent and the US had a ratified treaty granting the US control of the Panama Canal....in perpetuity. jttmab