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: Mike M who wrote (5545)	3/30/2003 4:24:24 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

Now now, Mike, take it easy. If you read the fine piece from the journal Foreign Policy that was placed on this thread a few days ago, you would have understood the logic in favor of a non-war alternative. The issue is NOT whether Saddam has or uses weapons of mass destruction. We all know that he has or did at one time. The issue is whether there is an EFFECTIVE DETERRENT to his using those weapons if he has them. The article mentioned above showed that there were and still are a number of effective deterrents. THAT is the main objective of either a war or non-war policy. As far as raping and killing go, if we are going to police the world against rape and killing, why not start in China and North Korea, and don't overlook Myanmar, Cuba, and several African states. The notion that preventing rape and killing justifies an offensive war against only one of the guilty states is simply an effort to get public support. But since you think we should actively stop rape and killing, tell me what you would do about that in China. Meanwhile, don't forget that we've so far done nothing to deter what is currently the worst threat for using weapons of mass destruction--North Korea. Bush and his buddies may have bamboozled you, but many others, especially those with relevant experience overseas, are not convinced, and think he's got another agenda. Art

To: Mike M who wrote (5545)	3/30/2003 6:20:16 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

Moreover, just because you don't care that Saddam has raped and killed his people doesn't mean others don't. Most pacifists are merely cowards who hide behind another name. Are you willing to spend hundreds of billions (per country) to take out every dictator that has killed and raped his own people? According to Freedom House, an organization that tracks the status of democracy around the world, only 120 of the world’s 192 nations are electoral democracies, Dasbach noted. “So unless Mr. Bush plans to launch strikes on the 72 other captive nations, he owes the American people an explanation as to why they should fear Iraq more than other despotic regimes,” Dasbach said. * Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. “According to the Pentagon, 12 countries have nuclear weapons programs, 13 have biological weapons, 16 have chemical weapons and 28 have ballistic missiles,” Dasbach said. “So what makes Saddam’s chemical weapons more menacing than, say, Pakistan’s nuclear bomb? * Saddam supports terrorism. “According to the State Department’s official list of terrorist sponsors, 45 nations have active al Qaeda cells,” Dasbach said. “So even if terrorists are operating inside Iraq, that in itself makes Iraq no more of a threat to the United States than Malaysia, Somalia, or the Philippines.” lp.org